My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
6/23/2008 9:47:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/20/2008
Doc Name
Request of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action for Formal Hearing on the Proposed Decision
From
EarthJustice
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR111
Email Name
TAK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Request for Hearing on TR-11 1 for the West Elk Mine (Permit No. C-1980-0007) Page 5 <br />June 20, 2008 <br />Coloradans have recently been impacted by dramatic increases in natural gas prices. The <br />Rocky Mountain News reports that Xcel, a major provider of natural gas and natural gas <br />generated electricity to Colorado communities, just this week submitted a rate increase request <br />that result in a 38% increase (year to year) in electricity and natural gas rates for consumers.5 <br />Xcel bases its request on natural gas prices and the newspaper quotes the director of the <br />Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel as stating that, "[i]t is a pass-through of fuel costs, <br />nothing more, nothing less,.... Natural gas prices are significantly higher this year than last year, <br />higher now than it was in the beginning of the year." These increases in natural gas prices are <br />frequently blamed on an increase in interstate pipeline capacity that has made Colorado gas <br />available to other markets.6 The methane to be vented by the West Elk Mine drainage project <br />represents a resource that could be used by thousands of Colorado homes. This methane is a <br />resource that could offset the export of Colorado's natural gas without additional drilling and the <br />associated impacts to other state resources, such as wildlife, water, and air quality. <br />ISSUES TO BE RAISED AT THE HEARING <br />1. DRMS Cannot Accept the USFS Consent to Surface Use as a Valid Right of Entry. <br />We urge the Board to require that DRMS withdraw the proposed decision until a valid <br />right of entry is presented by the Forest Service. As noted in the Public Notice for the proposed <br />decision, DRMS has only conditionally accepted the submitted right of entry. As discussed <br />above, the submitted right of entry is invalid because the Forest Service has failed to comply <br />with its environmental disclosure duties under NEPA. See Appeal (Exh. 2).' Consequently, <br />DRMS cannot approve the any permit associated with that Forest Service analysis and decision. <br />Due to USFS failure to meet the standards of NEPA, DRMS cannot accept the June 6, <br />2008 letter and Appeals Decision from GMUG National Forest to support a valid right of entry <br />as required for a permit approval under Section 2.03.6 of the regulations. <br />II. DRMS Should Require the Mine to Capture or Flare the Drained Methane. <br />We urge the Board to direct DRMS, in any permit or revision, to include measures that <br />will require the Mine to capture or flare methane. Failure to include provisions to capture or <br />s "Electric Bill Increase Chilling, Xcel: 38 percent request caused by natural gas price." <br />http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/17/electric-bill-increase-chilling/, last <br />viewed June 19, 2008. <br />6 See, e.g. "Segment of $4.4 billion Rockies Express gas line operating" <br />(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/20/natural-gas-pipeline-open-colorado- <br />missouri/, last viewed June 19, 2008). <br />While the Forest Service rejected the Appeal, it did so apparently on the grounds that <br />the agency need not comply with NEPA. The agency failed to respond to any of the appellants <br />specific arguments that appellants raised. The Forest Service's apparent conclusion that is has <br />no duty to comply with NEPA is impossible to square with the fact that the agency spent months <br />preparing the EIS.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.