Are we dealing with a bunch of crooks?     Sempra lied under oath, says legislator | The San Diego Union-Tribune*   *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050217/news_1n17sempra.html

From: Don
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: [powerplant] The Proposed Order has Been Issued

In summary, the CPCN is to be granted with the agreed to conditions between Catoctin and all other parties.

In addition to that, the examiner has added a condition for 2 years of air quality monitoring (quarterly) in one location (he mentions near Carroll Manor Elementary School in the document) once the plant is operational, plus nine Frederick County conditions and 5 additional PSC Staff conditions.

He excluded the land donation condition (and a couple of others) and spelled out his reasons why.

This is a long document, but provides a very good summarization of the issues from all sides.

The order will become final April 26th unless there is an appeal filed or the Commission decides more work is necessary. The references to how those things could happen are included in the conclusion of the document.

I have put together a page on the web site with the full text of the document, and also broken down into smaller, more digestible chunks.

From: Peter H. Michael
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Comment On PPRP's Reply Brief of February 18

Don,

I was both amused and thoroughly frustrated by Brent Hare’s Reply Brief on behalf of the Maryland Power Plant Research Program [PPRP] this week, in particular his programmed responses to your and the County’s CPCN requests. While the ventriloquist behind Mr. Hare had Mr. Hare say exactly what had I expected, the arguments put forth are as frustrating as ever, even if not surprising.

The best/worst was Mr. Hare’s fallacious defense mounted against your pointing out that economic damages would occur to nearby property owners. PPRP’s defense, as you read, is that Eastalco’s presence already caused any decrease in property values and that a huge new power plant, a second industrial amenity, could cause no further drop. This is the argument put forth by the second rapist in the gang bang: “Oh, she was already tainted.” As to modeling air quality, modeling is useful as far as it goes, but is no substitute for actual local measurement.

PPRP’s responses indicate that PPRP is as much as ever a mouthpiece for the power industry which is getting what it has paid for in Annapolis.

Thanks for all of your work against the power plant, Don.

From: Don
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:21 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Final Briefs have been submitted, and Eastalco has filed to increase their emissions

All,

Initial briefs from the parties were submitted and the public comment period is closed. I hope to put links to the briefs on the web in the next couple of days, but most of them are available from the PSC web site, case # 8997. After reading through all of it, it looks like a bunch of normal legal wrangling to me. Catoctin and Eastalco have objected strenuously to the land donation request and cited lots of legal references, while the County brief supported the donation issue.

My brief basically said we still want air quality testing even if the State says we don't need it, and Catoctin doesn't want to do it. We want the proof.

Also -- and here's the kicker -- Eastalco has submitted paperwork to the State for a change to their emissions limits. They want to make changes to their process that will increase their aluminum output and efficiency. That will result in increased emissions. They have done the modeling as required, and based on that will need to increase their stack height ~30 feet and in at least one area move their fence line back to ensure compliance with the PM10 NAAQS limits.

The Maryland Department of the Environment is the State agency that has jurisdiction here (as I understand it). I requested an electronic copy of this paperwork from the State - since it is not on their web site - but they said all they have is a paper copy. I also requested a copy from Eastalco, but they declined to provide it. The State said I could make an appointment to come look at it...

From: Don
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Re: Suggestion

Annemarie & Howard,

Unfortunately the process is almost over. There are no more public meetings. The hearing examiner will begin to formulate his recommendation to the PSC and provide his written proposed order 30-60 days after late February.

There is still an opportunity to provide written comments to the hearing examiner. Those comments have to be received by his office before February 7th.

If people wanted to do a petition, that would be great, but it would have to be submitted as part of someone's written comments to the hearing examiner.

I think the press mostly lost interest because there was perceived to be not a lot of community interest. And, the BOCC basically decided not to do anything either.

Anyhow, I continue to recommend that people provide written comments to the hearing examiner before the 7th.

The address is on the web site.

From: Howard Souder Jr
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] suggestion

Good Afternoon,

I'm also a GHM resident, and although I agree that "the message" needs to be broadcasted louder, I don't necessarily want any more flyers in my mailbox. I haven't seen much in the papers myself except for 2 articles over the last year. Are they just not interested, or has the "negative" side of story being surpressed?

From: Annmarie Winkler
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:15 PM
Subject: [powerplant] suggestion

Hi!

We recently moved to Green Hill Manor and from what we've heard so far, we're opposed to the plant.

We only found out about the meeting on the 12th from the article in the Gazette. I'm not sure if this has been tried before but maybe the turnout would be better if flyers were placed in everyone's mailboxes reminding people that there is a meeting coming up and that their attendance is greatly needed.

Also, would it do any good to go door to door and have the people in the neighborhood sign a petition opposing the plant, or has this already been done? And, so that it's not overwhelming to just one person, maybe one person on each street could collect names. I don't mind doing my street. Would it help to present a list of say, 300 names in the next meeting, opposing the plant construction?

From: Don
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:37 AM
Subject: [powerplant] Comment Period Still Open and Gazette Articles

First, you can still submit comments in writing to the hearing examiner until February 7th, and they will be part of the record. I urge everyone who has an opinion about the plant or any of the issues to send in written comments. In the comments reference 'Case Number 8997, Application of Catoctin Power, LLC' and send them to the:

Public Service Commission, Hearing Examiner Division
William Donald Schaefer Tower, 16th Floor
6 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202

Next -- for those who do not get the versions of the Gazette where these articles appeared, Rebecca McClay wrote 2 articles about the plant.

Power plant plans draw more criticism and Plant needs to find water source

While in my opinion they are a bit off on some of the details, they are good general reading about the public hearing.

One important note. One article states "Sempra agreed to comply with emissions testing required by Maryland state law". That does not mean that they will be doing air quality testing in the area. It means that they will be monitoring stack emissions as required by the EPA and MDE and ensuring that they do not exceed their permitted amounts. The issue of exactly what the air quality is like around the Adamstown area remains an open issue.

More later.

From: Don
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: [powerplant] Stipulation Agreement Posted

All,

The agreement between the State Agencies and Catoctin Power has been posted in its entirety to the Adamstown web site on the 1/12 hearing page. All 110 conditions are explained. As was stated at both hearings that day, this agreement was an 11th hour agreement only concluded the day before the hearings so, no one outside of the State Agencies and Catoctin was aware it had been reached until the hearing commenced. This agreement is only related to the State Agencies proposed conditions in the event that the CPCN is granted, not an agreement to grant the CPCN.

I also updated all of the pre-filed testimony with the corrections that were made during the daytime evidentiary hearing - which was mostly wiping out a lot of testimony that had been related to the conditions before the agreement.

I just wanted to add my thanks to those who came and spoke at the public hearing, there were a lot of good points made and a few even made it into the Frederick News Post this morning. Unfortunately it was on the front page of the Region section that the News Post does not put on their web site, so those who do not get the paper can't read it...

From: Don
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Reminder - Public Hearing is this Wednesday

Here is the information I received from an unofficial source:

1. People who would like to speak should arrive early.

2. Usually anyone can sign up to speak

3. The amount of time varies, and is not usually inordinately limited (like the 3 minute limit at our BOCC meetings) unless a person just goes on and on...

4. If for some reason a person is missed on the sheet, they are still usually able to speak.

5. It basically boils down to how much time the hearing examiner has and how many people want to speak.

So, if you have more than three minutes worth of things to say, get there early, sign up and go for it!!