Showing posts with label VA General Assembly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VA General Assembly. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

VA State Water Commission Meeting Notice

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
RICHMOND
October 05, 2009
MEETING NOTICE
TO: State Water Commission
FROM: Lori L. Roper, House Committee Operations, (804) 698-1547
RE: Meeting Date/Time/Location


Please be advised that the State Water Commission will hold a meeting on Monday, November 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM in House Room D of the General Assembly Building.

Should you have any questions regarding the meeting agenda, please contact Marty Farber in the Division of Legislative Services at (804) 786-3591. If you are unable to attend this meeting or have questions regarding scheduling, please contact our office at (804) 698-1540.


Members:

The Honorable Harvey B. Morgan The Honorable John C. Miller
The Honorable John M. O'Bannon, III The Honorable Richard H. Stuart
The Honorable Mathew J. Lohr The Honorable Frank M. Ruff, Jr.
The Honorable David L. Bulova The Honorable Patricia S. Ticer
The Honorable Paul F. Nichols The Honorable R. Creigh Deeds
The Honorable Watkins Abbitt, Jr. R. James Incenhour
The Honorable Christopher B. Saxman Michael T. McEvoy
The Honorable Thomas C. Wright, Jr.


cc: The Honorable Bruce Jamerson
The Honorable Susan C. Schaar
Martin G. Farber, Div. of Legis. Svcs.
Ellen Porter, Div. of Legis. Svcs.
Individuals requiring interpreter services or other special assistance should contact Committee Operations at (804) 698-1540, TDD (804) 786-2369. Persons making audio-visual presentations to the committee should call for specifications.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Funding the study

Money-laundering and political incest...

Danville Register & Bee

To the editor:

OK, let’s get this straight. Virginia Uranium Inc. wants studies that might indicate uranium mining and milling is good business and is safe for Virginia’s citizens. It also wants the National Academy of Sciences to conduct at least one of the studies.

The Virginia General Assembly voted not to fund such a study two years ago. Virginia Uranium Inc. persisted and apparently convinced the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission to do its bidding. The VCEC formed a uranium mining subpanel.

With the aid of Michael Karmis of Virginia Tech’s Mining and Minerals Engineering Department/Director of Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research Center, a study’s scope was determined and Karmis began communication with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. At present, no one can or will fund the NAS study but VUI.

The National Academy of Sciences will not accept VUI’s offer to pay because it does not perform its services for private industry. So Virginia Tech will take VUI’s money and give it to the NAS. The National Academy of Sciences will do the study for private industry as long as the industry does not pass the money directly to them? A “blind eye” kind of thing, I suppose.

Does this seem akin to money laundering? If NAS gets “besmirched,” they will have done it to themselves. Virginia Tech appears to be an accomplice. At this point, if the state offers to pay for a study, it looks like a disingenuous offer with those supporting it seemingly subjects of tampering. If citizens question the process, the get called “silly!” VUI has managed to make everyone look bad.

Without mining the first shovel of uranium Virginia Uranium, Inc. is already tearing at the fabric of Virginia and polluting our government institutions and causing deep divisions in the citzenry. If for no other reason than to protect the Commonwealth's integrity, uranium mining should be banned. Unfortunately, we stand to lose more if we mine and mill uranium. Why risk Virginians’ health, heritage, agricultural and tourism industry, future economic opportunities, clean air and water for a boom-bust uranium mine? To allow this, as Karmis might opine, would be “silly.”

KAREN B. MAUTE

Mount Cross

Note: The R&B chose to omit the follwing from Ms. Maute's original letter: "Without mining the first shovel of uranium Virginia Uranium, Inc. is already tearing at the fabric of Virginia and polluting our government institutions and causing deep divisions in the citzenry. If for no other reason than to protect the Commonwealth's integrity, uranium mining should be banned."

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/funding_the_study/14385/

This is the editorial that prompted Ms. Maute's letter:

Editorial: No conflict at Tech

A nuclear engineering program at Virginia Tech shouldn't impact its involvement in uranium study.

There is ample reason to be disappointed in, and wary of, the planned study of uranium mining safety in Virginia -- most notably the fact that the corporation wanting to do that mining is paying for the study.

But it is wrong to allege, as some critics of the study have, that Virginia Tech has a conflict of interest in its assigned role of managing the money and coordinating with the National Academy of Sciences on the study.

Anne Cockrell, a Danville resident and member of the mining opposition group Southside Concerned Citizens, said Tech's nuclear engineering program poses a conflict of interest.

"Tech's having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its back yard would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure," she wrote in a recent e-mail. She repeated the charge in a commentary in the Chatham Star Tribune.

In an interview with the Danville News, Michael Karmis, director of Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, called that argument "silly."

Tech is not revitalizing its nuclear engineering program because of the possibility that there may be a local source of uranium available. Rather, the move is in response to a growing demand for nuclear energy and the upcoming retirement of a generation of nuclear engineers.

There are serious reasons to doubt the safety and feasibility of mining and processing uranium in Virginia's damp climate and in a location near population centers.

For appearances' sake, it would have been far better for the state to have paid for the study. The corporation that could mine as much as $10 billion worth of uranium from the Coles Hill site has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the study, and should not be involved.

But no one else stepped up with the money, and the state isn't exactly flush with cash.

The safeguards in place -- including Tech's management of the funds -- seem sufficient to ensure that the study is not biased by its funding.

Certainly, the National Academy of Sciences will not trade its reputation in exchange for a $1.2 million study.

Based on the available evidence, Tech doesn't deserve to have its reputation besmirched, either.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/221135

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

State Money [for uranium study] Must Be Part of Equation

Katie's message is right-on!

Danville Register & Bee
September 29, 2009

To the editor,

The author of, “Welcome funding,” (Sept. 24, page A8) is quite right that these are hard times in Virginia, and hard times call for a wise investment in the future so that things will improve. That’s exactly why it could make sense for the legislature to invest in a thorough and unbiased study of uranium mining. If the legislature wants to consider opening the [entire] state to uranium mining and milling, it should know whether uranium mining in Virginia is sure to lead to safe and sustainable economic development or might cause harm, regional stigmatization and boom-bust economic instability.

The author repeats the assertion frequently made by Virginia Uranium Inc. that the National Academy of Science is “beyond reproach.” The NAS does not make this claim. Rather, as a matter of policy, the NAS does not do studies for private, for-profit corporations or accept money directly from them. The NAS takes the appearance of influence seriously.

While acknowledging great respect for the National Academies, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in a 2006 report “found serious deficiencies in the NAS’ committee-selection process” and instances of “blatant conflicts of interest.” CSPI doesn’t write off NAS, but rather offers constructive recommendations to improve the study committee selection process to ensure independence and objectivity. The report is available at http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf. [emphasis mine...SB]

This isn’t a matter of “reproach”; it’s a matter of accountability — accountability for avoiding influence and the appearance of influence. It is appropriate that all participants in the study process, whether legislators, citizens, or the esteemed National Academies hold themselves and each other accountable.

Accountability will be equally important in the socioeconomic study.

Virginia needn’t cover the entire cost of a uranium study; any contribution by the commonwealth would have significance. Securing any state funds would involve an approval process that would confirm that the commonwealth wants the study and increase confidence that all evidence will be weighed fairly.

KATIE WHITEHEAD
Chatham

anriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/state_money_must_be_part_of_equation/14205/

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Richmond drops the ball, not the cash

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 8, 2009

Virginia’s study of uranium mining finally has the funding it needs to move forward, thanks to the only entity that ever offered to pay for it.

Virginia Uranium Inc. Chairman Walter Coles Sr. long ago said his company would pay for the state study. With the commonwealth unwilling to fund the study and no one else waving their checkbook around, VUI money was the only way to move this issue forward.

In a better world, the state government should have paid for the study. The state’s moratorium keeps VUI from mining what’s believed to be the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States. If the study sways the General Assembly to lift the moratorium, it will be state agencies that will assume part of the responsibility for writing mining and milling regulations and ensuring that they’re enforced.

But most of all, it was in the state’s interest to allow the National Academy of Sciences to do its work without mining opponents from accusing the NAS of somehow being in the pocket of Virginia Uranium Inc.

That argument is a slap in the face of the scientists, researchers and others who will be involved in this project. It will no doubt plan a fertile seed of future debate, doubt and consternation. The state has done a cheap and foolish thing.

Compounding the problem is the NAS study probably won’t be a slam-dunk for either side. Both camps are likely to complain that certain things weren’t checked out by the National Academy of Sciences or that certain people weren’t interviewed or that certain places weren’t visited.

Even conditional conclusions — if this is done, then that will happen — are likely to be scrutinized right down to the syllable.

Given the stakes for both sides, we could be looking at years of argument that doesn’t convince anybody of anything — including majorities of the House of Delegates and state Senate.

Additionally, many local people supported an outside study of uranium mining and milling and are counting on the study’s results to inform their final choice on the matter.

For its part, an NAS spokeswoman said her agency doesn’t have direct contact with the companies it studies.

“We would not work directly with them (VUI),” Jennifer Walsh said. “We would only go to them with questions and concerns. They would have no say-so in the study.”

Is that the end of it? Probably not. Should it be the end of it? Probably so. But the problem could have been avoided if the state of Virginia didn’t saddle the National Academy of Sciences with this controversy.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Uranium Mining Study Under Way

The uranium-mining study is under way with public safety and the health impact No. 1 in the revised study statement of tasks.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee revised the study’s final draft Thursday in Richmond, moving public safety and the health impact from No. 7 on the statement to No. 1.

The uranium subcommittee approved the study document in an 8-2 vote with Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-59th District, and Delegate William Janis, R-56th District, opposing.

A moratorium on uranium mining is currently in effect in Virginia.

Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine a large ore deposit in Pittsylvania County located about six miles northeast of Chatham at Coles Hill.

Uranium mining opponents were vocal at the subcommittee meeting Thursday.

Katie Whitehead, chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, speaking on behalf of DRBA, called for changes in the study’s scope as well as specific task amendments at the Richmond meeting.

“I think the National Academy will give us reliable information, a way to look at the big picture and the complexity and will point to areas where additional information is needed,” said Whitehead.

However, Whitehead emphasized, “The need for amendments to clarify what the study will and will not do were not included.”

(emphases mine...SB)

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/news/news/uranium/675-uranium-mining-study-under-way.html

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Sewage Sludge: Yesterday’s Meals from NY/NJ Coming to Campbell County?

This is an interesting entry on the "Off K Street" blog. The entire piece can be found here:

http://offkstreet.blogspot.com/2009/05/sewage-sludge-yesterdays-meals-from.html

This snippet is especially unsettling because it points out apparent legislative sloppiness and short-sheeting when funding another hazard sudy:
Treated sewage sludge as fertilizer? Well, if farmers and gardeners use cow and chicken manure then why not use human treated bio-solid waste as fertilizer? This was the general premise behind the formation of a Virginia General Assembly legislative panel to study and determine if treated sewage sludge was safe for use as fertilizer on farms. According to today’s Editorial in the Lynchburg News Advance, this was the intent but again it seems the General Assembly, in their infinite wisdom, didn’t provide enough funding for the study to answer questions about potential affects to water quality, the food chain, and potential human health problems.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Uranium Mining is Yesterday's Technology

We're often impressed with the quality of anti-mining Letters and Guest Editorials in the Chatham Star-Tribune. Most of them are well-considered and thought-provoking. This one is particularly interesting in that it applies a different sensibility...that of a seasoned traveler.


Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:42 AM EDT




There is nothing like a quick trip to Europe to give some perspectives on life in the land of Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Students in Vienna rejoice in the fact that teachers threaten to walk out over work demands; banks shake at the prospect of losing their shirts in Eastern Europe; and everywhere I go, I see nothing but windmills, solar power panels and mountain streams churning electricity for the multitudes throughout the continent's cities.

Uranium might be on the minds of us in Virginia, and especially Pittsylvania County, but it is yesterday's technology in Europe. Austria voted to shut down its nuclear power plant in 1978 and has not started one up since.

Demonstrations continue against planned nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic, and across the rolling hills of Lower Austria, outside Vienna, windmills turn slowly but surely, producing power for thousands.

Twenty years ago, Viennese scientists and politicians worked together to produce a unique heating system for public buildings throughout the city. They built a massive incinerator for the city's trash, saving precious land and heating literally hundreds of buildings in the city with the refuse of its people.

It seems that Sigmund Freud has not been the only person in that town who has been busy thinking deep dreams about the future.

Travel puts things in perspective and nothing needs perspective more than the current debate over uranium mining in Virginia. I thought about this a bit during a recent train ride from Vienna to Salzburg and came up with what I think might be a new way of looking at things.

Suppose we approach the issue in a series of questions; rather than overwhelming our opponents and embarrassing our friends. Let's take a moment to consider these issues.

First of all, there is the "Strategic" question.

Uranium in Virginia will be a strategic necessity we are told; our future security demands a uranium mine in Pittsylvania County.

Now we hear that the company that would mine uranium is a fully-owned foreign company (VUI) with just a few local investors.

How does uranium mined by a foreign company contribute to the security of the United States?

Are we more secure by depending upon foreign agents for our energy needs? Does paying the Saudis for oil strengthen us as a nation?

Will paying Canadians for our uranium make us equally secure? The absurdity of this argument in light of the true origins of VUI is clear. Let's move on to question two.

Then we have the "Prosperity" question.

We are told that uranium mining in the county will bring us untold wealth and prosperity.

This is a fine argument for a nation currently in the grips of a near-depression. Alas, it, too, seems rather odd.

A century ago, the people of this area were told that textiles would bring untold prosperity. Dan River Mills kept other industries (and highways) out of the area for just this reason.

It is 2009 and Dan River Mills is nowhere to be seen (unless one travels to India) and the unemployment rate of the county is higher than average.

Tobacco was to be our savior and look at that industry now. In fact, hardly any Virginians at all are employed pulling tobacco in our fields. We import workers from over the border (and I do not mean North Carolina) to harvest what little crop the industry has left us.

Should a uranium mine come to this area, it, too, will monopolize our economy.

So, who will work there and what will that "prosperity" look like? As work in a mine is not exactly a career, but more like a job, my guess is that most of the workers will come from the same place we get our tobacco workers.

Watch out, Don Merricks, your campaign issues can come back to haunt you.

Here's another thought. If uranium mining brings us such wonderful prosperity, why is legislation in the works to limit mining to this county, when considerable deposits have been located in other counties such as Orange and Fauquier?

Should not all Virginians have a share of this prosperity and not merely Pittsylvania County?

Or could it be that our friends in those more fashionable areas realize the value of their land, air, water and way of life. They are perfectly content to allow us (and to legislate us) alone to share in the "wealth" that mining will bring.

There is always the "Political" question.

It is clear to all that Pittsylvania County is a conservative area politically. Politicians run regularly on the platform that they do not believe in big government and sending them to Richmond or Washington will work to stem the tide of bureaucracy in all our lives.

Each individual should be free to lead his or her life unencumbered by the watchful eye of Big Brother. Yet, these same politicians are on the edge of, if not already, advocating for the presence of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

Do they not realize that the imposition of this industry upon this county will automatically send out a swarm of bureaucrats to check our every breath, our every sip of water and our ever spade of topsoil?

Who will be safe from the regulation enforcement of this most heavily regulated of industries? And who will pay for the salaries of these officials?

My guess is that the taxpayers will pay for this army of government workers in the form of higher taxes. Taxpayers: that means you and I will pay to enforce the regulating of an industry that neither you nor I will prosper from (unless you are one of the few investors who actually LIVE in Virginia).

Finally, of course, there is the "Future" question.

Those who oppose uranium mining in Virginia are often called folks without a vision for the future. They are stuck hopelessly in a past that can never move out of its hippy-like dream of pastoral bliss.

Truly, nuclear power and its fellow traveler, uranium mining, is the look of the future. And it "is" the look of the future, if your future looks like 1970.

The nuclear power industry is always one accident away from extinction. We were lucky at Three Mile Island in 1979. The Russians were not so lucky at Chernobyl in 1986. Who is to say how our luck will run the next time.

Although he did allocate money for nuclear power development in the present budget, President Obama has placed far greater emphasis upon wind, solar and water power.

That is the true look of the future, and if our county were to live up to the meaning of that word, future, Mr. Coles and his Canadian cohorts would be filling their fields out in Sheva with the kind of windmills I saw generating power outside of Vienna.

They would not have plans to dig a large, open-pit wasteland as a memorial to their myopic vision of a world hopelessly mired in the past.

What about the "Environmental" question?

I left this one out on purpose. It is far too complex and delicate to treat here.

Needless to say it IS the question that worries us most and seems to be the one that is least answered in a satisfactory way from either side.

On this issue, we have no answer, we have only a very worrisome and permanent question that, should uranium mining find its way to Pittsylvania County, very many folks, here and as far away as Virginia Beach, will spend a great many years and tears worrying about.

The decision about uranium mining is one that will permanently change the face of this county and this Commonwealth.

It will touch citizens in every aspect of their lives. It will affect their health, their economic well-being, their property and their happiness.

Our politicians are charged with important decisions. If they miss this one, not only should their decision be in question, but the very nature of their ability to serve their constituents wisely and represent their interests fairly will be placed in doubt.

The minimum they can expect is to face defeat in the next election.

Like I said, travel broadens the mind. It also gives one time to think about things at home.

No one whom I met abroad could believe that Virginia was about to take this step...backwards as it were... if the Commonwealth approves uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

It was as if I had said we were considering the establishment of livery stables and the production of horse shoes. As they say in German: other countries, other customs...

Richard Dixon

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/01/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

Friday, March 27, 2009

VUI Hires Yet Another Lobbyist Firm; Firm Also Represents City of Norfolk

It's clear that VUI thinks that at least part of its success depends on the General Assembly. Mining opponents must keep the heat on the GA as well as at least part of its strategy. Southside can't afford hire a herd of lobbyists like VUI has done but we, as citizen lobbyists, constitute a much larger herd than VUI could ever afford. Don't hesitate to contact members of the GA, regardless of where their electorate resides. You are a Virginian...the GA should work for you (even if we know that many times they don't).

Lobbying firms certainly appear to have no compunction about accepting clients with conflicting interests...we've seen that already. First Virginia Beach and VUI shared a lobbying firm which, when asked to choose between the two, chose VUI and dropped Virginia Beach. Now Kemper Consulting has accepted VUI as a new client while representing the City of Norfolk and the company seeking to take over Virginia's port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News. How might this indirectly affect Norfolk's position on uranium mining at Coles Hill?


From "Norfolk Needs a Lobbyist Free of Distractions", published in The Virginian-Pilot, March 27, 2009:

A $3.5 billion proposal to privatize the state's port operations could have a far-reaching impact on many of the region's local governments and businesses. That's provoked questions about how a lobbying firm with close ties to many of the key players in the deal will sort out its potential conflicts of interest.

Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim is correct to broach the issue now, before his city finds itself at a disadvantage in delicate financial negotiations.

Kemper Consulting represents Norfolk on issues before the legislature and state agencies. But CenterPoint Properties, the Illinois company seeking to take over operations of the state's three port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News, is also a client.

CenterPoint's proposal is likely to be one of several pitched to the state this year. State officials will compare the merits of all bids, while also weighing whether Virginia would be better off maintaining control of its most valuable asset.

Norfolk's desires can't and won't be the only factor in the negotiations, but as the host city for the largest terminal it can't afford to get lost in the jockeying. It must have an advocate whose interests are in complete alignment.

CenterPoint is offering to pay Norfolk $3 million annually to cover lost tax revenues, road repairs from truck traffic and other services. That's nearly triple the pittance now paid by the state, but well short of the costs now borne by the city.

Fraim is reasonably giving Kemper time to propose a solution that could satisfy his concerns, but a resolution could be complicated by other clients of the firm. Kemper also represents the Virginia Maritime Association, a group of more than 400 companies that promotes commercial growth at the port.

In an unrelated matter, Kemper has taken on a new client in Virginia Uranium, a company seeking state approval to mine in Pittsylvania County. Virginia Beach opposes the mine until it receives assurances that the project will not contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's primary source of drinking water.

Norfolk has taken no position on the matter but is monitoring the issue because it stores and treats Beach water supplies.

The port is properly Norfolk's top concern. Strong commercial growth at the waterfront could assure the city's economic prosperity, but hasty deals will bring high costs and years of regret.

Given those stakes, city officials must demand a lobbyist free of distractions.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/norfolk-needs-lobbyist-free-distractions

Monday, March 9, 2009

Delegate Clarke Hogan Not To Seek Re-election

In a surprise announcement Sunday afternoon, Del. Clarke N. Hogan said he will not seek reelection to a fifth term in the House of Delegates.

“There is a season for everything,” he said.

Citing the responsibilities of owning and operating a business during tough economic times, Hogan said he has decided to focus his energies on his Ontario Hardwood business located in Keysville.

“Part of this has always been balancing two full-time jobs, and that’s a lot to look after. You can do it when things are going well, and I’ve enjoyed doing it for eight years, but in this economic environment, I’ve got to look after my primary responsibility, and that’s running Ontario Hardwood.”

Hogan said he feels he now needs to spend all of his time on his business.

“I hope most people will understand I’ve got to look after that business that provides a livelihood for me and 50 other people,” he said.

In making the announcement, Hogan said he didn’t really consider it a choice.

“We are dealing with the toughest economy we have seen in 60 years, since the Great Depression that requires anyone who has a business to spend all of their focus on that business. I see this decision as dealing with the reality of the environment.”

Hogan was first elected to the House of Delegates in November 2001 rising quickly in political ranks.

He was tapped as a budget conferee and served on the House Appropriations Committee where he served as chairman of the Compensation and Retirement Subcommittee.

He also served as a member of the Agricultural, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee and Rules Committee.

Hogan currently serves as chairman of the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission Technology Committee and is a member of the Executive Committee and Economic Committee for Southside.

“It’s been an honor, and I’ve enjoyed helping this community. I will certainly miss some of the people I’ve met, and I will miss having the chance to contribute to this community which has been very good to me,” he added.

Hogan expressed appreciation to his aide in the legislature, Sheila Bradley.

“She’s been my partner in this for almost 10 years and has done a tremendous job for the community. A lot of the things that I have gotten the credit for, she’s done,” Hogan said, adding, “We had some successes.”

Hogan said he believes a strong person will step up to the challenge and do a good job for the community.

“I think that will be for the community to decide,” he said speaking of his successor to the House.

“The next person who takes my place, I want them to get elected in their own right, and I don’t want anyone to say it was a sleight of hand by people in power. I want them to win this race on their own two feet. I’m not going to anoint him or her.”

Hogan said he views the job as a delegate as a community service, the same way one is involved in the church or the “Y.”

“There are certainly other opportunities that I will explore at some point to contribute to this community because I care about it, and I enjoyed representing it. I’m not going to quit doing that. I’m just going to do it in other ways that are not all-encompassing,” he added.

Looking back over his years in Richmond, Hogan cited accomplishments that have benefited Southside including funding for the Southern Virginia Higher Education Center that had a budget of $260,000 when he was first elected and now has a budget of over $2 million with funding from the General Assembly.

“I can look at this project and see where it has made a difference and will continue to for a long time,” Hogan said.

He also cited his work on the broadband network and what it will mean in the future for Southside Virginia and helping to bring the prison to Drakes Branch as major political accomplishments during his tenure in Richmond.

“A lot of people worked on these things. I’m not going to tell you I did these things by myself, but I certainly contributed to those efforts,” he said.

“I can walk away from being on the appropriations committee, being a budget conferee. It’s been a wonderful experience. A lot of people have helped me and given me a chance when they didn’t have to. It’s been a tremendous experience, and I’ve learned a lot from it, and I hope it benefited the people who live here, maybe in ways that are not readily apparent. And I’m certainly going to use those experiences in moving forward.”

On a larger basis, Hogan said he leaves Richmond at a time when the state budget is in “fairly good shape because we have been much more careful than other states. Most other states would be happy to trade places with us.

“Being in a position to be part of those decisions as one of a handful of people has been a real pleasure and an honor,” he said crediting the House Speaker with that opportunity.

Hogan said Sunday he has no plans to run for any other state office.

“I never wanted to run for higher office, and so I never spent a whole lot of time worrying about if I was the most popular person down there,” he said. “That has given me some freedom which I think has been beneficial to this community and has allowed me to play a role there. The freedom from not running for higher office of any kind gives you the ability to focus on the job you’re doing right now, and that, I think, has been liberating.”

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/news1.htm

Thursday, March 5, 2009

More Info on Scope of Mine Study Commission's Meeting Set for March 24 in Richmond

By John Crane

Published: March 5, 2009

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, tasked with studying the safety and hazards of uranium mining in the state, will hold a meeting March 24 in Richmond.

The meeting will be held at 2 p.m. in House room C in the General Assembly Building and will be open to the public, Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan and chairman of the committee, said Wednesday.

Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, will present a proposal for the study’s scope, or the range of scientific questions to be answered in it, to the 10-member subcommittee. Karmis and the subcommittee also will discuss choices for who would perform the economic part of the study, Ware said.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study in November to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound ore deposit on Coles Hill about six miles northeast of Chatham. The state has had a moratorium on the practice since the early 1980s.

The subcommittee held a public hearing in Richmond in December and another at Chatham High School in January to gather questions residents want answered in the study. Subcommittee members will again seek public input during the March 24 meeting, Ware said.

He said the subcommittee wants the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study’s scientific portion.

“We certainly hope the National Academy of Sciences would undertake the study,” Ware said.

The study, in the “warm-up phase,” would take about two years, he said.

Ware said the subcommittee would consider Karmis’ proposal and make a decision at the meeting, or at a later date if revision of the study’s parameters is needed. The next step would be to have Karmis contact the NAS and ask the academy to launch the study, he said.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/mining_group_to_meet_march_24/9501/

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Uranium, Other Conflict-of-Interest Issues Cause Lobbyists To Walking a Fine Line w/ GA

It appears that transparency could expose conflicts, double-dipping, etc.

JEFF E. SCHAPIRO, COLUMNIST

TIMES-DISPATCH

Published: January 31, 2009

Chuck Duvall is a lobbyist of the old school. Quiet, droll, with a purposeful stride, he carries his office in his pocket. What was said of a House speaker from Duvall's 'hood might apply to Duvall: He can walk through the woods without rustling the leaves.

But Duvall's mix of clients and this year's blend of legislation have state Capitol habitues stirring over a perceived conflict of interest.

Duvall, who came to Richmond from Frederick County as a legislative aide in the early 1970s, deals with this dilemma by intentionally not dealing in the issues that put his clients at cross-purposes.

For lobbyists, conflicts of interest are a growing challenge, if not problem, that can be largely attributed to Virginia's rapidly changing political and economic landscape. However, the principal safeguard against possible abuses remains unchanged: self-policing.

Given the amount of money spent influencing the General Assembly -- $20 million last year, up from $16 million in 2007 -- a skeptical public may have little confidence that lobbyists can be relied upon to keep their nest clean.

Another complication: lobbyists' innate aversion to scrutiny. Many lobbyists believe the most effective way to ply their trade -- that is, peddling information that molds government policy -- is to be heard and not seen. In other words: Leave the headlines to the politicians.

Del. Sam Nixon, R-Chesterfield, hopes to promote some transparency with legislation forcing lobbyists to report bill-specific spending -- the gifts and entertainment showered on a lawmaker for this vote or that.

Nixon got the idea from contract lobbyists who complain about opaque post-General Assembly disclosures to the state by their counterparts at the high-roller firms.

Duvall lobbies for hospital giant HCA, which favors higher tobacco taxes for Medicaid. He also represents Bailey's cigarette maker S&M Brands, a foe of additional levies. And Duvall has 7-Eleven. The convenience-store chain is against more tobacco taxes as well as a proposal to strip retailers of their cut for collecting the sales tax.

For the 2009 legislature, Duvall -- with his clients' OK -- skirts a possible conflict by not lobbying on these issues. That way, he preserves long-standing -- and lucrative -- business relationships. Further, Duvall avoids disrupting ties to lawmakers, who look to him for the straight skinny and the occasional campaign contribution.

Duvall isn't the only lobbyist bumping into conflicts.

Lawyer Alan Albert represents Virginia Beach. His partner, Tom Lisk, schmoozes for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association. The city favors tougher controls on smoking in public; the group opposes them. The firm and Virginia Beach decided Albert would not lobby on smoking bills.

Albert snapped up Virginia Beach as a client because of a conflict of interest by another lobbyist. Ben Dendy represented the city for years. The relationship ended because Dendy signed with a proposed uranium mine that Virginia Beach fears will poison its water supply.

More troublesome than conflicts of interest may be the protocols -- or lack thereof -- for identifying and avoiding them. Lawyers risk public punishment by the Virginia State Bar for breaching the profession's canons. Not nonlawyers.

The best solution may be to let daylight upon the mystery. That's assuming the lobbyists, and their assembly friends, don't lock the shutters first.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF01_20090131-220546/194252/

Friday, January 30, 2009

HB 2374 Income tax, state; Renewable Energy Job tax credit.

HB 2374 Income tax, state; Renewable Energy Job tax credit.
David L. Englin | all patrons ... notes
| add to my profiles


Summary as introduced:
Income tax; Renewable Energy Job tax credit. Provides an income tax credit to corporations for each "Renewable Energy Job" created and filled. The amount of the credit for each such job is (i) two percent of each salary that is less than $50,000 a year, and (ii) $1,000 for each salary of $50,000 and more a year. A Renewable Energy Job is employment in an industry related to renewable alternative energies. The credit is available for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, but before January 1, 2014. Full text:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 091930500 (impact statement)

Status:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 091930500
01/14/09 House: Referred to Committee on Finance

SB 1215 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Fund, created.

imilar legislation pending in the VA Senate:

SB 1215 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Fund, created.
R. Creigh Deeds | all patrons ... notes
| add to my profiles


Summary as introduced:
Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program. Repeals the Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and creates a program to provide financial incentives to companies that manufacture or assemble equipment, systems, or products used to produce renewable energy, nuclear energy, or energy efficiency products. To be eligible for a grant, the manufacturer must make a capital investment greater than $50 million and create at least 200 full-time jobs. The program would be managed by the Director of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Full text:
01/13/09 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093109812

Status:
01/13/09 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093109812
01/13/09 Senate: Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources

HB 2235 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and Fund; created.

Wonder who this is being designed for?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+sum+HB2235

HB 2235 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and Fund; created.

Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program. Repeals the Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and creates a program to provide financial incentives to companies that manufacture or assemble equipment, systems, or products used to produce renewable energy, nuclear energy, or energy efficiency products. To be eligible for a grant, the manufacturer must make a capital investment greater than $50 million and create at least 200 full-time jobs. The program would be managed by the Director of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Full text:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093108812

Status:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093108812
01/14/09 House: Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
01/27/09 House: Referred from Commerce and Labor by voice vote
01/27/09 House: Referred to Committee on Appropriations
01/28/09 House: Assigned App. sub: Economic Development, Agriculture and Natural Resources(Cox)