Mississippi Public Service Commissioners About to Be Exposed For Corruption On Kemper Power Plant

This is an example of corruption being, “above the law.”  The Mississippi Public Service Commissioners will not be able to provide proof that this plant is of public convenience and necessity because 1. It is experimental and is using unproven technology on a commercial scale. 2. Carbon capturing provides no benefit to the public and the ratepayers should not be required to pay for it, ever.

Would love to see them try to prove either one of these 2 issues.  It is illegal to gamble ratepayers’ money for a risky scam of carbon capture that fails to provide a public benefit nor is it the most cost effective.

 

The Mississippi Power will keep building Kemper County

Posted: Mar 16, 2012 3:12 PM CDT Updated: Mar 16, 2012 3:12 PM CDT

By Brad Kessie, News Director – bio | email

BILOXI, MS (WLOX) –

Mississippi Power will keep building its new Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle facility, despite a ruling by the Mississippi Supreme Court to send the certification process back to the Public Service Commission.

“We are confident there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission’s approval of the Certificate,” said Jeff Shepard, company spokesman.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling said the PSC didn’t provide details as to how it reached the decision it did.  That decision approved the certificate of public convenience and necessity Mississippi Power needed to build its Kemper County facility.

The Sierra Club appealed the PSC ruling to the Supreme Court, hoping to derail the $2.7 billion power plant, now under construction in Kemper County’s Liberty community. The environmental group argued 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.

Mississippi Power officials expect the PSC to rule on its behalf again.  “It is our hope and expectation that the Commission will address this expeditiously. We intend to continue construction of this facility to provide our customers with a sound energy future and unlock the facility’s substantial customer benefits,” Shepard said.

Copyright 2012 WLOX. All rights reserved.

Sierra Club took $26 million from natural gas lobby to battle Mississippi Power’s Lignite Coal Plant

This battle has more to do with the destruction of America’s economy and energy than the environmental issues of coal. This is Sustainable Development through the United Nations  and will be the end of America IF we don’t stop it.  The first step is for us to learn more about it and see for yourself, know for yourself, then decide what action you can do.

Start here.   http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

Sierra Club took $26 million from natural gas lobby to battle coal industry

12:45 AM 02/04/2012

A Time magazine blogger reported Thursday that the Sierra Club, America’s oldest and most august environmental organization, accepted millions of dollars in donations from one of the nation’s biggest natural gas-drilling companies for a program lambasting coal-fired power plants as environmental evildoers.

The total take for John Muir’s conservation group? A whopping $26 million over four years from Chesapeake Energy and its subsidiaries, mostly through Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon.

The news rocked the environmental movement, sent the Sierra Club headlong into explanation mode, angered coal companies that the organization targeted with natural gas money, and had free-market advocates shaking their heads.

The episode “raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past,” wrote Time’s Bryan Walsh.

The Daily Caller asked Chesapeake Energy spokesman Jim Gipson whether his company’s donations were made with the expectation that the Sierra Club would attack the coal industry, and whether the company has subsidized other green groups that oppose generating electricity by burning coal. Gipson did not respond to the email.

The Sierra Club launched its “Beyond Coal” campaign in 2001 on a shoestring budget, aiming to shut down as many coal-fired power plants as it could. McClendon’s money appears to have helped that campaign during a critical time when it was firing on all cylinders, lobbying against new power plant construction and working to close existing facilities, all the while hammering clean-coal advocates and blaming “big coal” for mercury pollution, asthma and assorted unforgivable ecological sins.

In 2007, the natural gas industry was also engaged in trying to persuade the federal government that its product was a more environmentally benign alternative to coal. Having the Sierra Club as a compatriot didn’t hurt.

“Back in 2007,” Gipson told Time, “Chesapeake and the Sierra Club had a shared interest in moving our nation toward a clean energy future based on the expanded use of natural gas, especially in the power sector.”

The company made its Faustian bargain with the Sierra Club’s then-leader Carl Pope, whose replacement Michael Brune put an end to it more than a year ago and refused an additional $30 million of Chesapeake’s money. The green group likely found that bitter financial pill easy enough to swallow, however, after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $50 million from his personal philanthropy in July 2011 for the anti-coal program.

On the Sierra Club’s blog Thursday, Brune explained his organization’s past lapse of judgment, saying “[t]he idea was that we shared at least one common purpose — to move our country away from dirty coal.”

But that was then. When the Chesapeake dollars began flowing five years ago, the natural gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking,” in industry-speak — had not yet become the environmental movement’s bête noire.

Now, Brune quickly added, “It’s time to stop thinking of natural gas as a ‘kinder, gentler’ energy source.”

A Charleston, West Virginia-based business newspaper reported that a Friday morning meeting of the West Virginia Coal Association ended with a new accusation of undue influence by natural gas industry insiders.

Kentucky Coal Association president Bill Bissett told the meeting that Chesapeake has also funded the American Lung Association’s Clean Air Initiative. The result, he said, is that the lung health group has attacked the coal and oil lobbies while leaving the natural gas industry alone.

Scott Rotruck, Chesapeake’s vice president of corporate development and state government relations, holds a seat on the American Lung Association’s board. The association’s Clean Air Initiative website currently features a large Chesapeake Energy logo and describes a $500,000 matching-gift pledge by the company.

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner told TheDC that the natural gas industry’s financial support “apparently dictated, as opposed to followed,” the Sierra Club’s advocacy work.

“Here we see the group being paid so much money I have no idea how they could possibly spend it all, to tout gas, block — according to their own boasts — more than 100 coal plants and now force closure of many existing plants. Only to no longer receive support and coincidentally find gas to be a very, very bad thing. Huh.”

Food and Water Watch, another environmental group with a strong position against natural-gas fracking, declined to comment.

Ron Arnold, the executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, told TheDC that the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign is a divide-and-conquer tactic to convince electric utilities to use natural gas instead of coal. But by 2010, he said, with the Sierra Club nearing its goal of making coal-derived power production burdensome and prohibitively expensive, “it backed out of the gas deal and suddenly refused to take any more dirty money.”

“How long will the Sierra Club’s grassroots members put up with this?” Arnold asked.

National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich was livid Friday, blasting the Sierra Club for “both its hypocrisy and its incompetence.”

“[I]ts support for gas as the bridge fuel has ironically dampened investment in renewable energy which the Club claims to support,” Popovich told the Platts energy newswire. “With friends like the Sierra Club, the renewable energy industry doesn’t need any enemies.”

At the helm of a crisis of confidence, the Sierra Club’s Brune may find himself with a shrinking pool of allies after President Obama fondly name-checked natural gas in his Jan. 24 State of the Union address.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,” Obama said, “and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

“Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. … The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/sierra-club-took-26-million-from-natural-gas-lobby-to-battle-coal-industry/#ixzz1lfqTeXVX

U.S. Government Projections for Mississippi Power, Southern Company

In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that coal would drop to 44% of America’s electrical generation by 2035. Actual generation dropped to that level in 2011.

This week, the agency again adjusted its long-term figures for coal in the U.S., projecting that generation will fall to 39% by 2035. But groups on the front lines of fighting coal plants say those figures are still far too conservative.

Due to a combination of cheap natural gas, higher coal prices, increasingly cost-competitive renewable energy, and an aggressive community of activists working to prevent the build of new coal plants, the coal sector is facing an unprecedented decline in generation. At least, that’s what leaders of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign are saying.

“The pipeline has essentially dried up,” said Bruce Nilles, the senior director of the Beyond Coal campaign, to Climate Progress. “Our view is that the rush is almost over.”

Here are some of the top indicators for coal’s future that Sierra Club pointed to after this week’s release of the EIA’s figures:

  • At least 33,000 megawatts worth of existing coal-fired power plants are expected to retire in the coming decades, not including any retirements due to the recently-finalized mercury and air toxics standard from the Environmental Protection Agency. For reference, an average-sized coal-burning power plant is approximately 500 megawatts.
  • The biggest difference from last year’s EIA projection is that more coal retirements will be driven by rising coal prices, state renewable energy standards and EPA clean air standards. All these signs point to reduced market share for coal and expanded market share for clean energy.
  • No new coal plants are predicted to be constructed in the time period, beyond those few that are already under construction.
  • The share of electricity production from clean energy sources (including hydropower and biomass) should increase from 10 to 16 percent during the time period.
  • Overall electricity demand growth is expected to remain below one percent annually.

Certainly, the outlook for coal isn’t good. But there’s a common misconception that coal is completely dead.

A look at the pipeline for projects in the top chart shows that there are still a fair amount of projects underway. EIA projects the portfolio of plants in various stages of development will actually increase coal generation after 2015.

But the EIA reference case assumes no change to existing policy — meaning it doesn’t factor in a price on carbon or any upcoming Environmental Protection Agency standards for power plant emissions. The combination of those two policies could dramatically change the prospects for coal.

“I’d say that coal is on the ropes,” says Nilles. “Many of the plants you see in development are rural electric cooperatives and municipal projects — no merchant projects because of sticker shock. Our view is that the rush is basically over.”

There’s one other factor being ignored by current conservative analysis: the dramatic changes in cost of renewable energy versus the increase in cost for constructing coal plants. For example, In Mississippi, the $2.4 billion, 500-MW Kemper County coal plant is expected to raise rates by more than 45% — increasing the average monthly bill by roughly $60.

Compare that to the stunning drop in the price and installed cost of solar technologies. According to some estimates, the changing economics for coal plants — assuming a new one actually gets built — makes the resource less competitive than solar photovoltaics in many areas of the country over the next few years.  HERE

Leonard Bentz says The whole (Mississippi Power Coal Plant) story is not getting told

Commentary: Big questions for Kemper County coal plant come down to who knew what and when

MBJ Staff

In May of 2010 we wrote, “For better or worse, the economic future for the next 40 years in southeastern Mississippi will be greatly impacted by the decision of Public Service Commissioner Leonard Bentz. ”

Justices with the Mississippi Supreme Court may be asking now how he came to his decision when he changed his vote from no to yes in a rehearing to approve the $2.8-billion Mississippi Power Company Kemper County coal plant.

Bentz and Lynn Posey have been for the project all along while Northern District Commissioner Brandon Presley has steadfastly been against Kemper, calling it, among other things, “Corporate Socialism. ”

However, Bentz has had questions before, particularly concerning rate impacts, which Mississippi Power has never fully disclosed.

“The whole story is not getting told,” Bentz told the Mississippi Business Journal prior to the second vote of the PSC. “It is frustrating. I want to build this plant, but I want everybody to know exactly what is going to happen when we build this plant. I have to look Gulf Coast residents in the eye and tell them I did everything I could to get the information on the table. ”

Yet, the entire story has not been told, and Bentz voted for the plant after publicly questioning its validity a year and half ago.

This case is before the Supreme Court because of the Sierra Club, which is trying to stop the construction of the plant already underway near Liberty. Sierra argues that the PSC broke the law by failing to lay out a clear reason for easing financial terms in its second vote.

“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?”

That’s a great question for Bentz, who is on the record saying, “The whole story is not getting told. ”

There are two more questions that should be asked.

Is the plant needed?

Will it work?

First, the plant is not needed, because Mississippi Power can supply energy to South Mississippi with natural gas, which the MBJ has reported will be less expensive over a 30 year period than the energy supplied at Kemper.

Second, in an editorial board meeting with Mississippi Power executives and its construction experts, they were not completely secure in the ability of the Kemper technology to work.

We asked if they could guarantee the technology would work when they flipped the switch for the first time at Kemper.

The answer, after a long pause, was no.

With that information, how could the PSC vote for, what amounts to, a $2.88 billion tax on the people of South Mississippi for energy that can gotten elsewhere — and for less money?

We suspect Mississippi’s Supreme Court will ask those question when all is said and done, and maybe, just maybe Bentz or someone will tell the rest of the story.

(here)

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.”

Urgent Agenda 21 Meeting

UN Agenda 21 means “Agenda for the Twenty-first Century”.  It is a plan to destroy a free America. There are many terms in our society today that relate to Agenda 21. Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, urbanism, environmental stewardship, Green space, global warming, carbon footprint……..  Many of these sound good but the end results is far from good.  Agenda 21 is designed to take away your property and control every aspect of your life … the end result is to take away your freedom.  Agenda 21 clearly states the goal is “Reorientation of Human Society”.

More and more American’s desire to learn about Agenda 21, we are beginning to recognize its encroachment in our cities & parishes. It’s right here in our own state!

On Saturday, January 14th, 2012, you will have an opportunity to learn from Ruth Esser the history of the United Nations Agenda 21.   Mr. Tom DeWeese will be our keynote speaker. Mr DeWeese is an internationally known speaker, an author and an expert on Sustainable Development & the UN Agenda 21.  He is the Founder of the American Policy Center. We will gain much insight from Tom DeWeese.  You don’t want to miss this!

Knowledge and Action are our best tools to fight the United Nation’s “Agenda 21”!

Moon Griffon, The Voice of Louisiana will be our Master of Ceremonies

                                  Mark your calendar for the Symposium, seating is limited!

                                                  
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012
Time: 1:00pm to 4:00pm
Location:
Family Christian Academy
8919 World Ministry Ave.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

EVENT LOCATION MAP

http://www.agenda21la.com/Information.php

(Contact your local community groups for next Agenda 21 meeting near you.)

———————————————————————

This event will be filled with educational material from some of the best experts on the topics concerning Agenda 21.

AGENDA 21 in 1 easy lesson

—————————————————————————————————–

Agenda 21
BUZZ WORDS:  sustainable development, smart growth, biodiversity, social justice
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.  Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, in June, 1992.  Although it was not an international treaty, and, therefore, never ratified by the United States Senate, executive orders written by every president since President George H. W. Bush has instituted its principles.  The ultimate goal of Agenda 21 in to bring to fruition The United Nations “Habitat 1 Conference Report” of 1976, which states:

Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of an accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”

In other words, Agenda 21 is aimed at controlling all property rights.  Areas on the Gulf Coast which were devastated by Hurricane Katrina are some of the most affected in that nearly all (if not all) communities accepted federal monies to rebuild after Katrina.  That money has ties to the United Nations and Agenda 21 through various governmental and nongovernmental agencies, including, but not limited to: the EPA, USDA, ICLEI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, American Planning Association, Rockefeller Foundation, Pew Foundation, and Ford Foundation.
Money tied to these organizations puts restrictions on land usage; you may own the land (including your house) and pay taxes on the land, but if federal money was accepted by your local officials, your rights to do with your land as you want may very well be restricted.
Bring as many friends and family as you can find.  All are affected.

Sources:

http://www.stopagenda21inms.com/

http://green-agenda.com/index.html

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

Mississippi Power & Southern Company’s FRAUD on Local Radio

I bet this topic will NOT be brought up in Mississippi Supreme court since the Sierra Club is a Non-Government Agency for the United Nations.   My understanding is the Sierra Club is a tool used to put laws into place by bringing litigation to UN connected programs and then settling or causing  decisions to be placed into law moving the Agenda of the UN forward.  We will see.  If they really cared they would demand to have the CO2 controversy proven in court to settle the science.

From Youtube

Mississippi Power‘s CO2 Capturing Lignite Coal Plant in Kemper County is based on FRAUDULENT SCIENCE. My favorite Gulf Coast Morning Radio Show host Kipp Greggory, interviewed former NASA scientist and White House Adviser, John L Casey, Author of COLD SUN. This is a portion of the exchange.
The Space and Science Research Corporation, (SSRC) is an independent scientific research organization in Orlando, Florida, USA. It has become the leading research organization in the United States on the subject of the science and planning for the next climate change to a long lasting cold era especially with regard to alerting the government, the media, and the people of the need to prepare for this new climate era.

Its staff of Supporting Researchers includes some of the world’s best in the fields of solar physics and geology including earthquake science and volcanism.

The SSRC and its President, Mr. John L. Casey, have an established record of accuracy in climate change predictions using the Relational Cycle Theory or RC Theory of climate change, a theory based on solar cycles as the main drivers behind the Earth’s variations in climate.
The Mission of the SSRC Is: To provide an independent un-biased resource for the government, media, corporations, and the people on important areas of scientific research and engineering, especially the science behind the next climate change and measures that can be taken to prepare for it.

Progress Exposed on Facebook

From a Facebook Post: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-UN-Agenda-21-Stop-ICLEI/284021125057

“To be clear, you will not find the words UN Agenda 21, ICLEI or any other similar term, anywhere in this dispute, but that is exactly what this case and this ruling are about. 100%.

However, the obscure headline: “Federal judge: Washington must restrict greenhouse gas emissions from state’s 5 oil refineries” gives enough information to show the links to UN Agenda 21, “greenhouse gas emissions” and “oil refinery”. I’ve gone round and round with our local property rights activists, who can’t seem to accept that the game here is rigged from the jump with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, or more commonly known as the GMA here in WA. Well, here’s your proof and it doesn’t get any clearer than this. If you still can’t see it…. Quote from the article: “The court affirmed that Washington has the authority and the obligation to address impacts from climate change pollution,” she said. “Our state can no longer afford to have our regulators sit on their hands and wait for the federal government to deal with the issue. It is time for our state regulators to follow the law and implement long-overdue measures to protect our climate.” Does it need to be spelled out more clearly than that? The federal judge ruled on the applicability of Washington’s Growth Management Act, entirely Agenda 21 derived and driven I might add, on businesses in Washington State. This is also why the Agenda 21 derived GMA must be attacked head on and it must be repealed. Or, at the very least, the more ridiculous and overarching elements need to be removed from it. The opponents of American business and American sovereignty, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, WEC, et al, know that by insisting on these CO2 controls and forcing it through the courts, that they will knee-cap these businesses into submission with the ridiculous idea that CO2 is causing harm to the environment, making them less efficient and less productive. Agenda 21 is about controlling CARBON. Life is CARBON. Therefore Agenda 21 is about controlling LIFE. CO2 is NOT harmful or a pollutant!!! “He who controls carbon, controls life.” ~ Unknown”

 

“SEATTLE — Washington must restrict greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s five oil refineries and possibly other industries under a federal judge’s ruling Friday.

The Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council and their lawyers at Earthjustice sued the state Ecology Department and two regional clean air agencies in March to force them to do a better job curbing emissions from the refineries. The groups estimate the refineries are responsible for up to 8 percent of all greenhouse gases released in Washington.

Under the state’s own environmental rules, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman noted, regulators are supposed to require “reasonably available control technology” by industrial emitters of greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. State regulators never actually enforced that, even though the rules were first approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1995.

Instead, state regulators require refineries only to comply with reductions of certain other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide.

Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer called the ruling a big deal for the state.

“The court affirmed that Washington has the authority and the obligation to address impacts from climate change pollution,” she said. “Our state can no longer afford to have our regulators sit on their hands and wait for the federal government to deal with the issue. It is time for our state regulators to follow the law and implement long-overdue measures to protect our climate.”

Though the environmental groups sued over the emissions from Washington’s five refineries, the language of the judge’s ruling — that state regulators must require reasonably available control emission-control technology from emitters of greenhouse gases — would seem to apply to other industries as well.

“The court affirmed that Washington has the authority and the obligation to address impacts from climate change pollution,” she said. “Our state can no longer afford to have our regulators sit on their hands and wait for the federal government to deal with the issue. It is time for our state regulators to follow the law and implement long-overdue measures to protect our climate.”

The other major emitters of greenhouse gases in the state include the TransAlta Corp. coal-fired power plant in Centralia, which is already getting new pollution controls before it is shut down in 2025, and cement kilns. It’s not clear whether any “reasonably available technology” exists that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cement kilns, Brimmer said.

What is clear is that oil refineries can reduce their emissions, primarily by making their processes more efficient and thus burning less fuel during refining, she said.

Seth Preston, a spokesman for the state Ecology Department, said Friday that officials had just received the ruling and were reviewing it.

“To be able to talk about far-reaching implications, we’re not there yet,” he said.

The refineries are BP PLC’s Cherry Point near Blaine, ConocoPhillips’ in Ferndale, Shell Oil Co.’s in Anacortes, Tesoro Corp.’s in Anacortes and U.S. Oil’s in Tacoma. A spokesman for the Western State Petroleum Association, which represents the refineries and intervened in the case, said its lawyers were reviewing the decision and did not have any immediate comment.

Pechman said she would determine later how quickly the state must apply greenhouse gas emission standards to the refineries. The environmentalists argued that the state could begin enforcing the rule within 90 days, but the agencies suggested they would need three years.”

HERE

Judge refuses to halt DOE Assistance for Mississippi Power’s Kemper Lignite Coal Plant

What about the economic impact?   The economic impact was not included? Someone needs to bring that forward to a judge as well.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected Sierra Club’s attempt to stop the Department of Energy from providing money or a loan guarantee on a 582-MW coal-fired power plant in Mississippi, until it has fully examined environmental impacts (Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, 11-514 JDB, D.D.C.).

The issues are not ripe for adjudication, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said in a 21-page opinion issued today.

DOE “has not yet made an ‘irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources’ with respect to loan guarantees,” Bates wrote, referring to DOE’s pending decision on whether to provide guarantees for up to 80 percent of the project cost, estimated to exceed $2 billion.

“Until [DOE] issues a Record of Decision on a guarantee, it is not committed to making one,” Bates said. “The Sierra Club may be correct that the department is closer to making a decision than the agencies were in Wyoming, Center for Biological Diversity, or Nevada.”

But “[u]ntil DOE actually commits to a loan guarantee, it is not relevant that DOE has committed other resources to the Kemper project or that DOE seems to the Sierra Club to have made up its mind,” the judge said. “Furthermore, it is not clear that there will be no further development of the issues here. Although the EIS did discuss a loan guarantee and was entitled ‘final,’ the EIS does not itself commit resources, and the agency could very well undertake further analysis (environmental or otherwise) before actually committing resources or deciding not to commit resources. Finally, it is not relevant that deferred review might make the agency more likely to continue on its course of action or make the ultimate decision harder to undo, since that is true in virtually every situation in which courts defer review on ripeness grounds.”

Arguing for a preliminary injunction, Sierra Club said, “Mississippi Power’s current activities at the construction site are destroying acres of forest, degrading local air quality, and disrupting an otherwise peaceful, rural community. Further construction and eventual operation of the coal plant and strip mine will destroy over 50 miles of streams and thousands of acres of wetlands, industrialize an estimated 13,925 acres of prime farmland and undeveloped forest, and burden surrounding communities with toxic air and water pollution.”

The plaintiffs also asserted that the project “is expected to lead to electricity rate hikes of nearly 50 percent for local residents” and that “[w]hile DOE and Mississippi Power seek to justify this project’s expense and enduring environmental impacts on grounds that it will advance the development of carbon capture technology, the plant will not be required to capture, much less sequester, the 5.7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent1 (“CO2e”) that it will generate each year.”

Bates said issuing an injunction would not provide the relief sought by Sierra Club:

“Mississippi Power has provided a sworn affidavit indicating that it will proceed with the Kemper project with or without [Clean Coal Power Initiative] assistance or a loan guarantee. The Sierra Club has produced evidence that the project was unlikely to have commenced without federal funding, but has not made such a showing regarding the continued viability of the project without federal funding.  Hence, the Sierra Club has failed to meet its burden of showing that it will be irreparably harmed by DOE’s funding of the Kemper Project absent the injunction it seeks.”

Excerpts from opinion

[T]he court will deny the Sierra Club’s motion for a preliminary injunction and grant the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss.  The case shall proceed only on the Sierra Club’s remaining claims.

The Sierra Club’s complaint presents five causes of action.  First, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by selecting the Kemper project for CCPI funding without giving detailed consideration to alternatives other than building the plant proposed by Mississippi Power.  Compl. ¶¶ 46-49.  Second, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by selecting the Kemper project for a loan guarantee without giving detailed consideration to alternatives. Compl. ¶¶ 50-53.  Third, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by preparing the EIS with a specified “purpose and need” that was too narrow.  Compl. ¶¶ 54-58.  Fourth, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by neglecting to consider the cumulative impact of emissions from the Kemper project in combination with emissions from other coal plants.  Compl. ¶¶ 59-62.  Fifth, the Sierra Club alleges that DOE violated NEPA by failing to disclose all the environmental impacts of the Kemper project and failing to identify mitigation measures.  Compl. ¶¶ 63-64.

Excerpts – Sierra Club brief in support of P.I. motion (5/16/2011)

DOE’s final EIS authorizes “a $270 million grant award and federal loan guarantees of up to $1.9 billion. Without this federal assistance, the Mississippi Power Company, a subsidiary of Southern Company, would be unable to finance its proposed ‘Plant Ratcliffe’—a new 582-megawatt (“MW”) coal plant that will burn lignite coal from a proposed 12,275-acre strip mine.  Already, DOE has disbursed nearly $50 million, which is funding ongoing construction work at the Ratcliffe site.”

HERE

Steve Davies
Editor/Publisher
Endangered Species & Wetlands Report (www.eswr.com)

%d bloggers like this: