5-3-09

 
5-3-09
Modesto Bee
Opponents will appeal driving range...Garth Stapley
http://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/688646.html
A shining example of urban limits could be compromised if leaders allow a golf course driving range north of Turlock, frustrated farmers say.
For more than two decades, Stanislaus County leaders have boasted about their formal greenbelt protecting farmland between Turlock and Keyes. Such buffers are essential to curb sprawl, say smart-growth experts.
Unincorporated Keyes, keen to preserve its identity, and farmers between the town and Turlock have been spared anxiety for at least 22 years because of the no-build agreement.
But most leaders involved in the initial deal have died, left office or changed jobs. And driving range applicants found that the agreement isn't as iron-clad as many people thought.
Fred and Shameron Adams want to replace their 39-acre almond orchard across Taylor Road from an am-pm minimarket with 30-foot netting, 20-foot lights, a 53-space parking lot, the driving range, and chipping and putting greens.
County planning staff suggested that county planning commissioners reject the proposal. But planning commissioners in March voted 5-1 for the driving range.
Neighbors in the Barnhart Road area between Turlock and Keyes signed a protest petition. Teri Nascimento, whose husband and son have lived and farmed there their entire lives, appealed the decision.
"We love farming here and we love our way of life," said Phil Mouzes, whose grandparents homesteaded on Barnhart Road upon moving from Nebraska in 1948.
If a driving range is allowed, other development won't be far behind, several neighbors predicted.
"It's their foot in the door," said Wendy Pereira. "Development can work its way down real easy. They just do it piece by piece."
Turlock planners Tuesday briefed City Council members on the appeal. Jeani Ferrari of Turlock-based Farmland Working Group told the council that the buffer has been put on a pedestal at smart growth conferences she attended.
"Piecemeal urbanization is a threat to the viability of farming in this buffer and raises the expectations of landowners for further development," Ferrari said.
The council unanimously empowered Mayor John Lazar to lobby county Supervisor Vito Chiesa, whose district includes Turlock and Keyes.
"I think the county should honor their commitments to us. I want to make sure we don't have any more misunderstandings," said Lazar, the only remaining member of the council that in 1994 approved a rewrite of the buffer agreement, developed in 1987.
Chiesa, who took office in December, on Thursday said he has met with several concerned groups.
"I'm new at this," Chiesa said. "I have no idea which way I'm going to go. I'm just trying to get good information to make an informed decision."
The appeal initially was scheduled for Tuesday, but a public notice glitch forced postponement until May 19.
Controlling growth?
Some see the appeal as a case study on the erosion of farmland protection. Similar concerns have prompted a variety of controlled-growth action over the years, including measures in Modesto and throughout Stanislaus County giving increased power over land-use decisions to voters instead of elected officials.
However, a majority of Patterson planning commissioners a month ago recommended stripping farmland preservation requirements from a proposed industrial park. Farmland mitigation sparked controversy in Riverbank's recent general plan update. And a committee of Modesto leaders Thursday started the ball rolling for a 480-acre annexation that would erase the rural area between that city and Riverbank.
County leaders in December 2007 revised their agricultural element, allowing people who want to build in greenbelts to propose alternative buffers.
An orchard on one side of the driving range and the range's open space would accomplish the same goal as a 300-foot setback, applicants said.
They also contend that the land "may reasonably be returned to agricultural use in the future."
Some members of the Keyes Municipal Advisory Committee, which provides advice to county supervisors, aren't happy with the driving range idea.
"I thought (the greenbelt) was a permanent deal," said committee member Davie Landers.
Committee member William Alexander said, "Turlock is not supposed to go beyond Taylor Road. "If they do, they're going to have a fight on their hands."
The driving range appeal is scheduled to go before Stanislaus County supervisors at a meeting starting 6:30 p.m. on May 19 in the basement chamber of Tenth Street Place, 1010 10th St., Modesto.
What They Say
'(The greenbelt) was very clear at the time. Everyone understood and agreed. But one of the realities of governance is that you can't obligate future policy-makers. So if there is no binding agreement, there is no mechanism for enforcement.'
- Carol Whiteside, Great Valley Center founder
'We fought very hard to preserve that agricultural buffer. If Turlock as a community still has that vision, they need to make it known to the county Board of Supervisors. They don't have all the history and understand the importance of what historically happened to make that a boundary.'
- Carolyn Lott, former Turlock city councilwoman
'We always felt (the greenbelt) was one of Turlock's literally defining features. Nobody ever wins with hopscotch planning.'
- Curt Andre, former Turlock mayor
Fresno Bee
Ethanol test for Obama on climate change, science...H. JOSEF HEBERT - Associated Press Writer
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-print/story/1375006.html
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama's commitment to take on climate change and put science over politics is about to be tested as his administration faces a politically sensitive question about the widespread use of ethanol: Does it help or hurt the fight against global warming?
The Environmental Protection Agency is close to proposing ethanol standards. But two years ago, when Congress ordered a huge increase in ethanol use, lawmakers also told the agency to show that ethanol would produce less pollution linked to global warming than would gasoline.
So how will the EPA define greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production and use? Given the political clout of farm interests, will the science conflict with the politics?
Environmentalists, citing various studies and scientific papers, say the agency must factor in more than just the direct, heat-trapping pollution from ethanol and its production. They also point to "indirect" impacts on global warming from worldwide changes in land use, including climate-threatening deforestation, as land is cleared to plant corn or other ethanol crops.
Ethanol manufacturers and agriculture interests contend the fallout from potential land use changes in the future, especially those outside the United States, have not been adequately proven or even quantified, and should not count when the EPA calculates ethanol's climate impact.
"It defies common sense that EPA would publish a proposed rule-making with harmful conclusions for biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions," complained Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
He was one of 12 farm-state senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who wrote EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in March, urging the agency to stick to assessing only the direct emissions.
Ethanol, which in the future may come from cellulosic sources such as switchgrass and wood chips, is promoted by its advocates as a "green" substitute for gasoline that will help the U.S. reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil. That transition is a priority of the Obama White House.
In 2007, Congress ordered huge increases in ethanol use, requiring refiners to blend 20 billion gallons with gasoline by 2015 and a further expansion to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.
Congress said any fuel produced in plants built after 2007 must emit 20 percent less in greenhouse gases than gasoline if it comes from corn, and 60 percent less if from cellulosic crops.
Meeting the direct emissions would not be a problem. But if indirect emissions from expected land use changes are included, ethanol probably would fail the test.
Nathaniel Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said that wouldn't mean the end of ethanol.
Ethanol from existing production facilities is grandfathered and "there are ways to produce advanced ethanol's that would comply with the greenhouse thresholds," even using land use climate impacts if the industry chose to adopt them, Greene said.
But farm interests and their allies in Congress are pushing to get the EPA to at least postpone any consideration of the land-use impacts issue, arguing the science surrounding the issue is uncertain.
The senators' letter said that an overreaching regulation by EPA on ethanol's link to climate change "could seriously harm our U.S. biofuels growth strategy by introducing uncertainty and discouraging future investments."
Environmentalists say there have been enough studies on the indirect impact of ethanol on greenhouse pollution to justify the science.
Ignoring the indirect impacts "will undermine the environmental benefits" of the renewable fuels program "and set a poor precedent for any future policies attempting to reduce global warming pollution," 17 environmental group wrote Jackson in response to the senator's plea.
Greene said the EPA's handling of the ethanol rule will be a "a test of our ability to follow sound science" even when it conflicts with the interests of powerful interests.
The environmental organizations noted that Obama has "vowed to make the U.S. a leader on climate change" and put science over politics, and "now is the time to uphold those pledges."
EPA spokeswoman Andora Andy declined to say when an agency proposal - a holdover issue from the Bush administration - would be issued. Interest groups on both sides of the debate said it could come in days. The White House Office of Management and Budget concluded its review of the EPA proposal last week.
Latest idea to fill Tulare Lake all wet?...Lewis Griswold
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/griswold/v-print/story/1374866.html
Filling now-dry Tulare Lake with water would be better for water management than building a dam on the San Joaquin River at Temperance Flat, an environmentalist told the Tulare County Water Commission at a recent public meeting.
Water engineers rolled their eyes, then promptly trashed the idea.
"Not much can be accomplished by using Tulare Lake as a reservoir," said Dick Schafer, a consulting engineer and commissioner.
They've heard it before: Put water into the Tulare Lake bed in southwest Tulare County.
Historically, a freshwater lake was there, but the water going into the lake got diverted for farming until the lake all but went dry. The lake bottom is now farmed.
Environmentalists have favored restoring the lake as a wetland for wildlife. Twenty years ago, their bumper sticker read: "Save Tulare Lake -- Flood It!"
The new twist is to use the lakebed as a reservoir, and pump out the water when it's needed to where it's needed. Which means no need for a dam on a river.
Steve Haze of Auberry, who once ran for Congress, posted a 10-page "concept proposal" at www.sjvwlf.org. Filling 10% of the historic Tulare Lake and using it as a reservoir and for underground water storage would cost $1 billion, according to Haze, compared to $5 billion for Temperance Flat.
He said a state grant helped pay for his study.
A Temperance Flat dam would indeed be costly, said Dennis Keller of Visalia, a water consulting engineer and member of the Tulare County Water Commission, which meets monthly to discuss local water issues such as nitrate contamination of groundwater.
Restoring Tulare Lake might be an environmentalist's dream, but from his point of view as an engineer, using Tulare Lake as a reservoir would be "a nightmare," Keller said.
The water would pool at the lowest point in the Valley, and it would have to be pumped uphill, he said. That means using pumps, and losing the advantage of gravity.
But Haze said pumps already are there to move water around for farming. Pumping water out of the lake so water rights holders could use it would mean going uphill only 75 feet and tying into existing canals like the California Aqueduct. By comparison, Aqueduct water is now pumped 3,000 feet uphill out of the Valley to get it to Los Angeles, he noted.
Keller said a revived Tulare Lake would be wide and shallow, and would evaporate too much water. Furthermore, the acidity of the water would get too high, even hazardous. That has happened before when there has been water in the lake. Also, algae would grow and cause problems for pumping.
But Haze said the some of the water would be in the underground aquifer and would not evaporate, and the technical details would have to be worked out by engineers.
"There aren't any engineers saying this is the kind of project you'd want to have out there," Keller said.
Sacramento Bee
All we do now to save salmon could mean nothing...Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman...McClatchy
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/67402.html
BOISE, Idaho -- The Pacific Northwest has spent two decades retooling dams, rebuilding damaged watersheds and restoring stream flows to keep salmon from disappearing.
The United States has invested billions in the effort - $350 million in 2004 alone - by far the most money spent on any endangered species.
But a new threat is more devastating than the gill nets that sent dozens of salmon runs into extinction. It is more deadly than the hydroelectric turbines that still kill millions of migrating smolts. In fact, it raises doubts about whether salmon will survive in the Northern Pacific at all.
Climate change already has made rivers warmer and spring runoff earlier, disrupting the life cycle of the fish that are an icon of the region.
No matter what actions the world takes to reduce greenhouse gases, river temperatures in more than half of the lower-elevation watersheds may exceed 70 degrees by 2040 - too hot for salmon.
"The only salmon that are going to survive the century mark are the ones in the large populations in the higher elevations that are still going to have snow and cold water," said Jim Martin, a former chief of fisheries for the state of Oregon.
But even these runs and those as far north as Alaska would be threatened if the world does not reduce gases like carbon dioxide over the next 50 years.
Stockton Record
What's next for divisive project?
With controversial golf resort's future in legal limbo after Calaveras County rejection, both supporters and foes wonder...Dana M. Nichols
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090503/A_NEWS/905030317
BURSON - Golf clubs were still swinging late last week at the Trinitas golf course, even after the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors voted its intention to reject the course owner's application to legalize operations. How much longer those clubs will swing - and whether environmental restoration urged by state and federal authorities will ever happen - remains an open question.w
The uncertainties persist because what has happened with Trinitas is unprecedented - a golf course built in an agricultural preserve before the owner applied for the necessary permits to operate the business.
County officials have refused to legalize it or to approve auxiliary functions such as a banquet facility, lodge, clubhouse, spa and 13 luxury homes.
The site's future as a resort seems uncertain.
What is certain is that residents in this neighborhood of rolling, oak-covered pastures and remote, rural homes remain deeply divided. Pro-Trinitas folks lament the loss of a viable business while the Trinitas critics celebrate what they say is restoration of the rule of law.
"This is one for the little guys," said Charlie Craft, 64, a Vietnam veteran who moved to the area for its quiet, rural setting. He's not happy with the view from his deck of a wide swath of the golf course and the site of the proposed lodge.
Craft, like many critics, said he viewed the county's weak initial response to construction of the course as reflective of a "good old boys network" that made it possible for people with money to violate county rules while less-affluent residents such as himself had to comply.
"They've been getting away with stuff like this for so long, we just didn't think we'd find a way around this," Craft said.
Feelings are equally passionate on the other side, where neighbors such as Darryl Rusk, who frequently attended meetings on Trinitas, views the rejection of the course as reflective of an anti-business attitude on the part of some supervisors.
"What other project do they have in the works that has the potential to create jobs, tax revenue? What other project has the prospects of this? That is damn near criminal," he said of the supervisors' vote.
The owners of the 280-acre Trinitas golf course have repeatedly managed to overcome obstacles to their dream, starting in 2001 when heavy equipment began constructing the would-be layout while some neighbors began calling county code enforcers in an effort to halt the project.
Since then, Calaveras County officials sometimes warned the Trinitas owners to stop building and at other times seemed to encourage them. At one point, former Calaveras chief building official Ray Waller even told a concerned neighbor that he would not use law enforcement officers to stop the course owner from getting on his tractor and building the facility.
After almost five years of environmental studies and often-emotional public hearings, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to reject the project. The board majority said the site has long been zoned for farming, that a golf course is incompatible and that the area does not have the water supply, sewers and roads needed for a resort.
County planning officials say they won't discuss when or how they will begin enforcing zoning rules - which ban golf courses in areas zoned for agriculture - until after the Board of Supervisors casts a final, definitive vote rejecting the golf course Tuesday.
Trinitas owner Mike Nemee did not respond to requests sent by e-mail and left on a telephone answering machine to discuss his plans for the future.
Nemee and his wife, Michelle, did send out a brief statement following Tuesday's vote: "We are truly disappointed by today's outcome. This is a tremendous shock to our family and our supporters - who we can't thank enough. This is not what we anticipated."
In the past, Mike Nemee has refused to answer questions about his golfing operation, such as whether people who have already purchased lifetime memberships will get refunds should the business not receive necessary permits. The official Trinitas Web site says that the course is not open and that free bottles of olive oil are included with green fees.
Golf carts and golfers were clearly visible and in operation Thursday.
Like many other things in the Trinitas debate, the Nemees and their supporters disagree with critics and regulatory agencies even on basic facts.
Although Calaveras officials now say that golf courses are not allowed on land zoned for agriculture, the Nemees say that golf is legal on farmland, and that other county officials, since departed from office, told them so in the past. They have not produced any written documentation to support their claim.
The Nemees also have said both in writing and during public hearings that they initially built the 18-hole golf course as a private facility for their family and friends.
Statements like that prompted Supervisor Tom Tryon to criticize the Nemees for being "deceptive" about their intentions.
Similarly, on questions of environmental damage, the Nemees insist that they have been good stewards, even as state and federal wildlife officials have warned that the golf course likely destroyed habitat for a number of threatened or endangered species, including the California tiger salamander, the elderberry longhorn beetle and the vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Both state and federal wildlife agencies pushed hard for Nemee and county planners to do more to study the damage already done by the construction of the golf course, and specifically suggested that the environmental study should use pre-golf course aerial photos to at least estimate what was lost.
"We asked for that and it hasn't happened," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Steve Martarano said, adding that his agency still wants that information.
Meanwhile, Craft and other neighbors of the golf course are also still waiting, and they too say they know what they want.
"No golfers," Craft said. "I'd like to see it go back to the way it was."
San Francisco Chronicle
STRIPED BASS
Bill to eradicate fish thrown back...Tom Stienstra
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/03/SPSK17CBIS.DTL&type=printable
Sport anglers made a rare show of unified force last week and persuaded an Assembly committee to gut a bill that would have classified the bay-delta's striped bass as a predator fish that should be eradicated.
The bill, AB 1253, sponsored by agricultural interests, blamed the decline of endangered winter-run salmon and Delta smelt on striped bass predation, rather than the delta pumps and water diversions. If approved, the bill would have removed existing protection for striped bass and proposed that commercial interests be allowed to net and sell stripers. It also would have prohibited the state from funding programs that would benefit striped bass.
Those stipulations were removed from the bill at a hearing held by the Assembly Water, Parks & Recreation Committee. About 75 people testified against the bill, including the leaders of Northern California's eight major fishing organizations, and six spoke in favor of it.
The committee also amended the bill to require a review of the language characterizing the damage striped bass do to salmon and smelt populations, but that is likely to face more opposition.
At the hearing, David Ostrach, a scientist from UC Davis, and Tina Swanson, a biologist from the Bay Delta Institute, testified that these studies have already been completed and show that striped bass have little or no impact on salmon and smelt.
Contra Costa Times
Protesters crash port meeting about air-quality plan...Chris Metinko, Oakland Tribune
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_12280436
OAKLAND — Protesters stormed and disrupted a Port of Oakland meeting early Saturday, saying a new plan to manage truck traffic at the port fails to address environmental issues, and does nothing to improve working conditions for drivers.
"We do not accept the plan that has been articulated," said the Rev. Eric Gabourel, a member of the East Bay Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, as he helped lead the protesters into a meeting room at Oakland City Hall. "It is not going to get us clean air. It is not going to give us local hires."
Gabourel joined others outside City Hall before the meeting to help rally environmentalists, truckers, community leaders and others to protest the port's new Comprehensive Truck Management Plan.
Port officials say the $15 million plan would help reduce pollution, improve security and meet business needs. It includes $5 million for truck retrofits to help bring them in compliance with upcoming air-quality regulations and would create a truck database registry, so officials would know what trucks are entering and exiting and if they are abiding by all regulations.
"We need to move forward with this," said Omar Benjamin, executive director of the Port of Oakland. "If we don't move forward, we are not going to clean the air."
The port is trying to reduce seaport diesel pollution by 85 percent by 2020.
But the protesters said the plan is neither comprehensive nor sustainable. They said the port should instead go with an employee driver-based port trucking system, in which drivers would be employed by trucking companies that would pay them a better wage and make sure their trucks were up-to-date with the latest environmentally friendly technology.
"It should be the responsibility of trucking companies to upgrade the trucks," said Aditi Vaidya, port program director for the East Bay alliance for a Sustainable Economy. "The truckers themselves cannot afford it."
Many truckers at the port are independent contractors.
"Being an independent contractor is like being a slave," said Muhammed Asif, a 56-year-old truck driver from Oakland. Asif said he gets paid between $5 and $6 an hour from work at the port, making it hard to upgrade or retrofit his truck to meet new standards.
"It's hard to put food on my table," he added.
The plan is set to be heard by the port's Maritime Committee May 26 and go for final approval by the board June 2. Public comments on the plan are being accepted until May 15. 
Share your views
The Port of Oakland is seeking comments from the public through May 15 on its Comprehensive Truck Management Plan.
Comments may be submitted three ways:
· By mail: Port of Oakland, Attn: Delphine Prevost, 530 Water St., Oakland, CA 94607
· By fax: 510-835-1641
· By e-mail: Write "Comments on CTMP" in the subject line, then send message to ctmp@portoakland.com.
For details, go to www.portofoakland.com.
Washington Post
Wal-Mart vs. the Wilderness...JAMES MCPHERSON, Princeton, N.J. The writer is the George Henry Davis '86 Professor of History at Princeton University and a past president of the American Historical Association. McPherson won the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for "Battle Cry of Freedom" and is a two-time winner of the Lincoln Prize.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/02/AR2009050202004_pf.html
In May 1864, two armies clashed in a desperate struggle for the course of our nation's history. The Battle of the Wilderness was a great turning point of the Civil War -- the first clash between Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant and the beginning of the end for the beleaguered Confederacy. The fighting was so intense that the tangled underbrush caught fire, burning wounded soldiers alive.
To commemorate the bloody struggle, portions of the Wilderness -- which is near Locust Grove, Va., in Orange County -- were set aside as a national military park. However, just 21 percent of the battlefield is permanently protected; other key areas are privately held and vulnerable to development.
This vulnerability became apparent when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced plans to build a 138,000-square-foot superstore on historically sensitive land directly across the road from the national park. The store would sit on a hill overlooking key parts of the battlefield, looming over a national treasure.
Preservationists are not opposed to Wal-Mart opening a superstore in the region. A coalition of national and local conservation groups has merely asked Wal-Mart to choose a different location. Together with more than 250 other historians, I signed a letter to the company in support of that idea. We wrote that "the Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be moved. Surely Wal-Mart can identify a site that would meet its needs without changing the very character of the battlefield."
"Wilderness Wal-Mart" supporters argue that because the proposed store site lies just beyond the park, it lacks historic significance, a profound misunderstanding of the nature of history. In the heat of battle, no unseen hand kept soldiers inside what would one day be a national park. Such boundaries are artificial, modern constructions shaped by external factors, and they have little bearing on what is or is not historic. To assume the park boundary at the Wilderness encompasses every acre of significant ground is to believe that the landscape beyond the borders of Yosemite National Park instantly ceases to be majestic.
With Civil War battlefields we have a true tool for determining historic value: the findings of the congressionally appointed Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. I was privileged to serve on this distinguished panel of historians and lawmakers, and I stand by our decision to include the area Wal-Mart is considering within the battlefield's historic boundary.
The controversy illustrates another misconception about historic preservation -- that it must occur at the expense of economic development. A properly managed historic site can be a powerful economic driver for its community, creating jobs and generating tax revenue by drawing tourists.
Recognizing this, preservationists have proposed a comprehensive planning process to balance protection of the Wilderness Battlefield with regional economic development goals, marrying respect for the old with the promise of the new. It is a process by which everyone -- Wal-Mart, local residents and the battlefield -- wins. The alternative is the type of piecemeal development that has swallowed up historic sites and destroyed the identities of countless communities. It is a scenario in which only Wal-Mart wins.
There is still time for Wal-Mart to recognize its error and identify another location. This week marks the 145th anniversary of the Battle of the Wilderness, a perfect opportunity to seek a solution in everyone's best interests. The Wilderness Battlefield is a living memorial to American sacrifice and heroism. It would be tragic if such a landmark was lost through the short-sightedness of local decision-makers and Wal-Mart's stubborn refusal to consider reasonable alternatives.
The PATH to Dirty Energy...BRUCE NILLES, Richmond. The writer is director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/02/AR2009050201975_pf.html
Discussion about transmission line planning and green power is popular in Washington these days. A vast network of new high-voltage transmission lines is needed, we're told, to bring renewable energy to market. But does that mean that any new transmission line is good for the environment and the new "green economy"?
There's now controversy over the planned Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) transmission line ["Down to the Wires," editorial, April 10], with some saying environmentalists oppose what will bring much-needed clean energy to market. Yet a quick review of the facts reveals that the PATH line has nothing to do with clean energy and everything to do with profit-seeking coal companies.
The PATH line doesn't originate at a wind farm or solar installation. PATH begins at West Virginia's 3,000-megawatt John E. Amos coal-fired power plant. Among the nation's 1,400 coal-fired plants, the Amos plant ranks among the worst emitters of sulfur dioxide, mercury and global warming pollution. And the Amos plant isn't the only dirty power plant that would benefit from new transmission lines. Western Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia are dominated by old coal-fired power plants.
PATH is a joint venture of American Electric Power Co. Inc. and Allegheny Energy Inc., both of which rely heavily on coal. Allegheny Energy officials have said that 95 percent of the company's electricity is generated by coal -- not what we'd called a "green power" company.
These companies will make extraordinary profits from the PATH line. First, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has guaranteed a high rate of return on the construction of the multibilliondollar line, which will be paid for by ratepayers. Second, the utilities will earn much higher profits for their coal-based electricity once PATH enables access to higher-priced markets in other East Coast states.
This combination of high returns for zero-risk investments makes it abundantly clear why coal utilities want PATH and other transmission lines, and why they encourage the misconception that these lines are needed to move clean energy power.
While some will say that local residents are opposing PATH out of "NIMBYism," there is much more at stake for them than their backyards. The opposition is about coal's air and water pollution and the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining. It is about our obligation to curb global warming pollution. This is why national groups such as the Sierra Club are joining forces with local groups to oppose the line. Sierra Club supports responsible transmission planning for clean energy, but the PATH line does not fall into that category.
PATH is also not needed to meet the Washington region's growing electricity demand. Recent reports show that demand in the region has actually been declining. Any fear-mongering about power blackouts is based on bad data -- official studies traced the 2003 blackout to utility operating and maintenance errors, not a need for new transmission lines.
There are other solutions to meet power needs in the mid-Atlantic region rather than linking up with dirty coal plants, including the vast East Coast offshore wind resources.
The price of offshore wind electricity is competitive with coal and can be delivered into the grid via transmission lines that are only tens of miles long instead of the hundreds of miles needed for moving coal-fired power. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has also found that many East Coast states, including Virginia, could meet 100 percent of their electricity needs with offshore wind.
If Virginia and the nation are serious about supporting clean energy, then transmission reform must be part of that policy, but it must result in new lines that serve our vast clean energy resources rather than expand the carbon-intensive power generation as the PATH line would.
Bloomberg.com
Joblessness Probably Rose to 25-Year High: U.S. Economy Preview...Shobhana Chandra
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZiRhLBelglc&refer=home
May 3 (Bloomberg) -- Unemployment in the U.S. probably climbed in April to a 25-year high, showing the labor market will be one of the last areas to emerge from the worst recession in at least 50 years, economists said before reports this week.
The jobless rate jumped to 8.9 percent last month from 8.5 percent in March and employers cut at least 600,000 workers from payrolls for a fifth straight time, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey ahead of a May 8 Labor Department report. Other figures may show service industries shrank at a slower pace.
Companies may keep trimming staff and spending in a bid to shore up profits until sales show sustained gains, something economists say is unlikely to happen for months. Even when an economic rebound begins to take hold, the loss of jobs and smaller paychecks are likely to lead to a muted expansion.
“The recession will be officially over this year, but the recovery will be sluggish,” said Michael Gregory, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto. “Getting out of the jobs recession will take longer.”
An estimated 600,000 workers were cut from payrolls last month, according to the survey median, bringing total job losses since the recession began in December 2007 to 5.7 million, the most of any economic slump in the post-World War II era.
It’s “hard to fathom any sustained strength in consumer spending” until the “hefty” job losses ease, said BMO’s Gregory, who estimated the unemployment rate may rise to 9.5 percent by yearend and level off around 9.7 percent in 2010.
GDP Shrinks
Gross domestic product dropped at a 6.1 percent annual pace in the first three months of this year after contracting at a 6.3 percent rate in the last quarter of 2008, government figures showed last week. Consumer spending climbed, ending its biggest slide since 1980.
Still, economists surveyed by Bloomberg in early April projected spending, the biggest part of the economy, will falter again this quarter before showing more sustained gains in the second half of the year.
Automakers have been among the hardest hit industries as consumers boost savings and pay down debt. Vehicles sold at a 9.3 million annual pace in April, less than forecast and down from a 9.9 million pace a month earlier, industry figures showed last week.
A liquidation by Chrysler LLC, which the government pushed into bankruptcy on April 30, would result in the loss of 38,500 jobs should its proposed partnership with Italy’s Fiat SpA be rejected by the court, the company estimated.
Fewer Dealers
General Motors Corp., surviving on U.S. loans, is working to beat a June 1 bankruptcy deadline set by the government. GM’s plan to trim its retail franchises may eliminate as many as 137,330 dealership jobs, the National Automobile Dealers Association estimated.
Economists project the Labor report may show manufacturers cut payrolls by 157,000 workers in April after a decline of 161,000 a month earlier.
One bright spot last month may have been government staffing for the 2010 census. The U.S. Census Bureau began hiring 140,000 temporary employees in April to start conducting the population count that happens once every 10 years. They are the first of more than 1.4 million people it will hire over the next year.
Another report may show service providers, which account for almost 90 percent of the economy, are starting to improve. The Institute for Supply Management’s index of non-manufacturing businesses probably climbed to 42 in April, according to the Bloomberg survey. Readings below 50 signal contraction. The Tempe, Arizona-based group will release the figures on May 5.
Casinos Hurting
The deteriorating labor market is one reason service industries are still shrinking, albeit at a slower pace. Las Vegas-based Wynn Resorts Ltd.’s revenue is down as business at casinos slows, Chief Executive Officer Steve Wynn said last week.
“People who have lost their jobs and whose businesses are in trouble don’t have money for leisure and optional expenses,” Wynn said in an April 28 speech in Beverly Hills, California.
The ISM’s gauge of manufacturing climbed to 40.1 in April, signaling the worst of the factory slump may be over, figures showed last week.
Employers are trying to get more out of the staff they have left to give profits an added lift. Labor Department figures on May 7 may show productivity grew at a 0.8 percent annual pace in the first quarter as companies slashed payrolls and hours even faster than output slumped, according to the Bloomberg survey.
Tomorrow, the National Association of Realtors may report the number of Americans who signed contracts to buy previously owned homes was probably unchanged in March as lower prices attracted buyers, according to the Bloomberg survey median.
The same day, the Commerce Department may say spending on construction projects fell in March for the sixth consecutive month, economists in the Bloomberg survey forecast.