Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country NCPIRG Education Fund Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 NCPIRG Education Fund Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with NCPIRG Education Fund. © 2005, NCPIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at NCPIRG Education Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at NCPIRG Education Fund, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: NCPIRG Education Fund 112 S. Blount St, Ste 102 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 833-2070 www.ncpirg.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company ................................................................. 16 Solving the Problem at the Source: Reducing Power Plant Mercury Emissions ...................... 18 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 21 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 21 Appendices Appendix A.1. 100 Counties with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003......................................22 Appendix A.2. County in Each State with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003 ........................23 Appendix B.1. 100 Zip Codes with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003 ....................................24 Appendix B.2. Zip Code in Each State with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003......................25 Appendix C.1. All Power Plants Reporting Mercury Air Emissions, 2003 ........................................................26 Appendix C.2. Power Plant in Each State with Highest Mercury Air Emissions, 2003.....................................37 Appendix D. Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions by Company, 2003 .............................................................39 End Notes............................................................................................................................ 42 Made in the U.S.A. 3 Executive Summary Power plants are the largest industrial people to avoid or limit their consumption source of U.S. air emissions of mercury, a of certain types of fish. Moreover, EPA potent neurotoxin that poses serious scientists estimate that one in six women health hazards. Mercury is particularly of childbearing age has enough mercury in harmful to the developing brain; even low- her blood to put her child at risk should level exposure can cause learning she become pregnant. disabilities, developmental delays, lowered IQ, and problems with attention and This report analyzes the most recent EPA memory. While current law requires swift, data on mercury air emissions from power steep reductions in power plant mercury plants. Key findings in the report include emissions, the Bush administration the following: recently promulgated regulations that allow power plants to avoid the Clean Air ¾ Power plants in the U.S. collectively Act requirement to reduce mercury and emitted 90,108 pounds of mercury into other toxic air pollutants quickly and by the air in 2003. Texas, Ohio, the maximum achievable amount. This Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Alabama report uses the most recent available data were the states with the most mercury reported to the U.S. Environmental air emissions from power plants in Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxics Release 2003. Inventory to analyze power plant mercury emissions by state, county, zip code, ¾ Counties with the highest mercury air facility, and company. emissions from power plants were concentrated in states in the Gulf When power plants burn coal or wastes Coast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic containing mercury, their smokestacks regions. More than half of the top 50 emit mercury, some of which is washed out counties with the highest mercury air of the air onto land and into waterways, emissions were located in just seven where it may be converted into states: Alabama, Florida, Indiana, methylmercury, an organic form of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West mercury that builds up in fish. Scientists Virginia. In the top county, found that a gram of mercury, about a Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, drop, deposited in a mid-sized Wisconsin power plant mercury emissions totaled lake over the course of a year was enough 1,527 pounds in 2003. to contaminate the lake’s fish. ¾ The most polluting 100 facilities Eating contaminated fish is the primary emitted 57,242 pounds of mercury into pathway for human exposure. Indeed, the air in 2003, or 64% of power plant mercury pollution is now so pervasive that mercury emissions. Most of these 44 states, the U.S. Food and Drug facilities—nearly 60%—were located Administration (FDA), and the EPA have in just nine states: Alabama, Illinois, issued fish consumption advisories warning Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Made in the U.S.A. 4 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West 22% of total U.S. power plant mercury Virginia. Five of the 10 most polluting emissions. facilities were located in Texas. Rather than let many of the nation’s ¾ The most polluting 15 companies power plants continue to emit or even emitted 48,353 pounds of mercury in increase their mercury emissions, the Bush 2003, or 54% of total U.S. power plant administration should protect public mercury emissions. Three companies— health by rewriting its mercury rules to American Electric Power, Southern ensure the maximum, timely reductions in Company, and Reliant Energy, which power plant mercury pollution that the collectively own 57 facilities—emitted law requires. 19,694 pounds of mercury in 2003, or Made in the U.S.A. 5 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants When power plants burn coal or wastes year was enough to account for all of the containing mercury, their smokestacks mercury in the lake’s estimated fish emit mercury, a persistent population.8 Moreover, because mercury is bioaccumulative toxin that builds up in a bioaccumulative toxin that is taken in body tissue. Rain, snow, and dust faster than it is eliminated, it biomagnifies particles “wash” mercury out of the air up the food chain and builds up in body onto land and into waterways, where some tissue over time.9 Fish at the top of the of it is converted to methylmercury, an aquatic food chain can have mercury organic form of mercury that is especially levels approximately one to ten million toxic to humans and wildlife.1 times greater than the levels in surrounding waters.10 Power plants are the largest source of mercury air emissions in the U.S., releasing The primary way that people in the U.S. about 41% of the national total per year.2 are exposed to methylmercury is by eating According to the Environmental contaminated fish,11 which absorb Protection Agency (EPA), while U.S. mercury from water through their gills and sources are responsible for 3% of global from eating plants, organisms, and other mercury emissions, 60% of the mercury fish.12 In addition, mercury can pass deposited in the U.S. comes from domestic, through the human placenta to developing manmade sources;3 about 30% of fetuses and through breast milk to nursing continental U.S. mercury deposition comes infants.13 from U.S. power plants alone.4 Deposition rates differ by region and locale, and A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses mercury deposition can be much higher significant human health hazards. near individual sources.5 For instance, in Mercury can affect multiple organ the southeast, the EPA estimates that systems, including the nervous, U.S.-based sources account for 37% of cardiovascular, and immune systems, total mercury deposition in Georgia, 58% throughout an individual’s lifetime.14 in North Carolina, 62% in South Carolina, Infants and children are particularly at and 68% in Florida.6 Moreover, a 2003 risk of problems associated with mercury analysis of EPA data found that in-state exposure because their nervous systems sources of mercury can account for 50-80% continue to develop until about age 14.15 of mercury deposition at the “hot spots” Exposure to mercury affects the within each state with the highest levels of developing brain, causing vision and mercury.7 hearing difficulties, delays in the development of motor skills and language Notably, even minute amounts of mercury acquisition, lowered IQ, and problems can be significant. At Wisconsin’s Little with attention and memory; these Rock Lake, for instance, researchers found developmental deficits may translate into that a single gram of mercury, about a a wide range of learning difficulties once drop, deposited over the course of a single
Recommended publications
  • Annual Disclosure Report
    ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of the LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (FISCAL YEAR 2020) This Annual Disclosure Report does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. The information set forth herein has been furnished by the Authority and LIPA and includes information obtained from other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without notice and nothing herein shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Authority, LIPA, PSEG, PSEG Long Island, National Grid or Exelon since the date hereof. Such information and expressions of opinion are made for the purpose of providing information to prospective investors and are not to be used for any other purpose or relied on by any other party. This Annual Disclosure Report contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” In this respect, the words “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. A number of important factors affecting the Authority’s and LIPA’s business and financial results could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Annual Disclosure Report.
    [Show full text]
  • POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Potential Paradise Plant Retirement Project Number: 2018-34 POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Knoxville, Tennessee FEBRUARY 2019 To request further information, contact: Ashley Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-632-2256 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Related Environmental Reviews .............................................................................................. 4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................................... 5 1.6 Necessary Permits or Licenses and Consultation Requirements ............................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Elliott Investment Management Sends Letter to Board of Directors of Duke Energy Corporation
    Media Contact: Stephen Spruiell Elliott Investment Management L.P. (212) 478-2017 [email protected] Elliott Investment Management Sends Letter to Board of Directors of Duke Energy Corporation Outlines Plan to Create At Least $12 to $15 Billion of Line-of-Sight Near-Term Value for Shareholders Calls for New Independent Directors and Strategic Review to Explore a Tax-Free Separation into Three Regionally Focused Utility Companies Believes Separation Drives Meaningfully Improved Operations and Execution That Will Benefit Duke’s Customers and Shareholders West Palm Beach, Florida (May 17, 2021) – Elliott Investment Management L.P. (“Elliott”), which manages funds that have an investment in Duke Energy Corporation (“Duke” or the “Company”) that make it a top 10 investor in the Company, today sent a letter to Duke’s Board outlining a plan to create $12 to $15 billion of line-of-sight near-term value for shareholders. Elliott explained that this value upside is based on observable publicly traded market valuation metrics of Duke’s closest peers and does not incorporate meaningfully higher valuations realized in recent transactions in Florida and Indiana, which would result in several billion dollars of incremental value. In the letter, Elliott argued that Duke’s long-term underperformance has not been reflective of its high-quality assets and that the Company should explore a separation to increase operational focus and improve performance. Elliott’s plan proposes that the Company commence a strategic review to explore a separation into three regionally focused entities: (1) the Carolinas; (2) Florida; and (3) the Midwest, each of which would be headquartered in the region it serves.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 0 1 8 C L I M a T E R E P O
    2018 CLIMATE REPORT NiSource Stakeholders: I am pleased to share with you the 2018 NiSource Climate Report, which describes our journey to achieve our aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, along with several of the risks and opportunities associated with climate change. In serving nearly 4 million natural gas and electric customers across seven states, our operating companies share common commitments – to safety, customer satisfaction, reliable and affordable service, and sustainability. We’re openly and transparently engaging our customers, our communities and all our stakeholders in long-term planning to meet these commitments. In October 2018, after months of detailed discussions with stakeholders, our Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) subsidiary announced the Your Energy, Your Future plan, a balanced, gradual, and orderly process to retire all our coal-fired electric generating units by 2028 and to begin replacing them with new lower-cost, cleaner energy sources, including wind, solar and battery storage. We envision a brighter future in three important ways: by focusing on the long-term strength of our local economies; delivering the best cost, most balanced, and reliable energy our customers need; and reducing emissions to improve our environment. NiSource is targeting a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 2005 levels) from operations by 2030, an industry-leading step consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement. In our natural gas business, we are targeting a 50 percent reduction in methane emissions (compared to 2005 levels) from natural gas main and service lines by 2025 through our well-established priority pipe replacement programs. We ask you to join us on this journey by participating in our energy efficiency and other customer-focused programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” Dated April 1995 (1995 SFES-OL-1)
    NUREG-0498 Supplement 2, Vol. 1 Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Supplement 2 Final Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative Copies of industry codes and standards used in a reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are and their attachments. maintained at— The NRC Technical Library NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC Two White Flint North regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of 11545 Rockville Pike Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one Rockville, MD 20852–2738 of these two sources. 1. The Superintendent of Documents These standards are available in the library for reference U.S. Government Printing Office use by the public. Codes and standards are usually Mail Stop SSOP copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating Washington, DC 20402–0001 organization or, if they are American National Standards, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov from— Telephone: 202-512-1800 American National Standards Institute nd Fax: 202-512-2250 11 West 42 Street 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Characteristics
    Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report SECTION 2.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities .............................. 2.2-1 2.2.1 Locations and Routes ................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.2 Descriptions .................................................................................. 2.2-3 2.2.2.1 Descriptions of Facilities ............................................ 2.2-3 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials ....................... 2.2-3 2.2.2.3 Description of Pipelines ............................................. 2.2-6 2.2.2.4 Description of Waterways .......................................... 2.2-6 2.2.2.5 Description of Highways ............................................ 2.2-7 2.2.2.6 Description of Railroads ............................................. 2.2-8 2.2.2.7 Description of Airports, Aircraft, and Airway Hazards ..................................................................... 2.2-8 2.2.2.8 Projections of Industrial Growth .............................. 2.2-11 2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Accidents ............................................... 2.2-12 2.2.3.1 Determination of Potential Accidents ....................... 2.2-12 2.2.3.2 Effects of Design-Basis Events ................................ 2.2-29 2.2.4 References ................................................................................. 2.2-29 2.2-i Revision 0 Clinch River Nuclear Site
    [Show full text]
  • Site Name: National Grid: Greenpoint Energy Center
    Greenpoint Energy Center Site This Upland Site Summary was authored by National Grid. The opinions, statements, and conclusions herein are solely those of National Grid. They are not adopted by and should not be attributed to any other Person. SITE NAME: NATIONAL GRID: GREENPOINT ENERGY CENTER Address: 287 Maspeth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11211 Tax Lot Parcel(s): Brooklyn, Block 2837, Lot 1 Latitude: 40.720500 - 40° 43’ 5.30’’ Longitude: 73.931800 - 73° 55’ 51.24’’ Regulatory Programs/Numbers/Codes: NYSDEC Codes 224052, V00631, 610000X6OG - Division of Air Resources ID, (NYSDEC)00157 - Compliance Data System ID, (USEPA)NYD986871077 - Facility Index Database System ID, (USEPA)NYD006978795 - Resource Conservation Recovery Act ID , (USEPA) Plant ID 110002337784, Spill No. 9009058, 9111530, 9211562, 9301329, 9305107, 9606233, 9714234, 0004653, 0104143, 0106270, 0202908, 0303442, 0310061, 0413650, 0506134, 0908424, 0908872, 1006581, and 1012824. Analytical Data Status: Electronic Data Available Hardcopies Only No Data Available 1 SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPCs) TRANSPORT PATHWAYS TO THE CREEK The current understanding of the transport mechanisms of contaminants from the upland portions of the Greenpoint Energy Center (Site) to Newtown Creek is summarized in this section and Table 1. Overland Transport: No specific evidence of overland transport was identified in the available site records. The pathway has not been evaluated for completeness but will be under investigation in the near future. Bank Erosion: A relieving platform (bulkhead) adjacent to Newtown Creek extends along the eastern part of the Site. No specific evidence of bank erosion was identified in the available Draft Upland Site Summary May 2012 Newtown Creek RI/FS 1 110782-01.01 Greenpoint Energy Center Site site records.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Power Station
    Copyright © Tarek Kakhia. All rights reserved. http://tarek.kakhia.org Coal Power Station ( Fly Ash , Bottom Ash & Flue Gas Desulfurization ) BY Tarek Ismail Kakhia 1 Copyright © Tarek Kakhia. All rights reserved. http://tarek.kakhia.org Contents No Item Page 1 Fossil - fuel power station 3 2 Chimney 11 3 Fly Ash -1 21 4 Fly Ash -2 44 5 Electrostatic precipitator 44 4 Bottom Ash 52 7 Flue - Gas Desulfurization ( FGD ) 53 8 Flue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustion 44 1 Flue - gas stack 47 10 Calcium Sulfite 72 11 Calcium bi sulfite 73 12 Calcium sulfate 74 2 Copyright © Tarek Kakhia. All rights reserved. http://tarek.kakhia.org Fossil - fuel power station Contents 1 Basic concepts o 1.1 Heat into mechanical energy 2 Fuel transport and delivery 3 Fuel processing 4 Steam - electric 5 Gas turbine plants 6 Reciprocating engines 7 Environmental impacts o 7.1 Carbon dioxide o 7.2 Particulate matter o 7.3 Radioactive trace elements o 7.4 Water and air contamination by coal ash . 7.4.1 Range of mercury contamination in fish 8 Greening of fossil fuel power plants o 8.1 Low NOx Burners o 8.2 Clean coal 9 Combined heat and power 10 Alternatives to fossil fuel power plants o 10.1 Relative cost by generation source - Introduction : A fossil - fuel power station is a power station that burns fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or petroleum (oil) to produce electricity. Central station fossil - fuel power plants are designed on a large scale for continuous operation. In many countries, such plants provide most of the electrical energy used.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Draft Remedial Investigation Report
    Geotechnical Environmental Water Resources Ecological Final Remedial Investigation Report Fulton Municipal Works Former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site Brooklyn, New York Order on Consent Site No. 224051 Index No. A2-0552-0606 Submitted to: Submitted by: National Grid GEI Consultants, Inc. One MetroTech Center 455 Winding Brook Drive Brooklyn, NY 11201 Glastonbury, CT 06033 860-368-5300 July 2012 Project 093020-1-1110 _____________________ David B. Terry, P.G., LEP Vice President FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT NATIONAL GRID FULTON MUNICIPAL WORKS FORMER MGP SITE JULY 2012 Qualified Environmental Professional’s Certification I, David B. Terry, certify that I am currently a Qualified Environmental Professional as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 375 and that this Report was prepared in accordance with applicable statues and regulations and in substantial conformance with the DER Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation (DER-10) and that all activities were performed in accordance with the DER-approved work plans and DER-approved work plan modifications as discussed in this Report. Date: July 6, 2012 _____________________________ David B. Terry, P.G., LEP GEI Consultants, Inc. i FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT NATIONAL GRID FULTON MUNICIPAL WORKS FORMER MGP SITE JULY 2012 Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms viii Executive Summary xi 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Remedial Investigation Objectives and Scope 2 1.2 Site Description 5 1.2.1 Fulton MGP and RI Study Area History 5 1.2.1.1 Pre-MGP History 5 1.2.1.2 MGP History
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Fossil Plant to Comply with the CCR Rule Requirements
    Cumberland Fossil Fossil Plant Plant CUMBERLAND CITY,CITY, TENNESSEETENNESSEE QUICKQUICK FACTSFACTS OH IN IL WV KY MO VA TN NC AR SC MS AL GA EPA CCR RULERule Groundwater GROUNDWATER Monitoring MONITORING for 2019 Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by TVA for the Output: 2,470 Megawatts TVACumberland as required Fossil Plant,by the as U.S. required Environmental by the U.S. Environmental Protection ProtectionAgency (EPA) Agency (16Output: billion 2,470 kilowatt-hours) Megawatts (16 billion Coal(EPA) CoalCombustion Combustion Residuals Residuals (CCR)(CCR) RuleRule. for The the 2019EPA calendar published year. the The EPA kilowatt-hours) published the CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- Number of homes powered: CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- 1.1 MillionNumber of homes powered: fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been released to fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been 1.1 Million groundwater from active, inactive and new CCR impoundments, as well as active Wet to Dry / Dewatered releasedand new CCR to groundwater. landfills. This fact sheet addresses the EPA CCR ConversionWet to Dry /Program: Dewatered Activities Rule groundwater monitoring only. underwayConversion Program: Complete The CCR Rule establishes multiple phases of protective groundwater monitoring for fly ash and gypsum. Bottom ash Inincluding addition baseline to ongoing sampling, groundwater Detection Monitoring monitoring and Assessment required under Monitoring. TVAdewatering Wide CCR tank-based Conversion solution Program Total Spend: Corrective action may be necessary at the completion of this process.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan
    2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan A Report from the New York Independent System Operator Draft Report for April 12, 2019 ESPWG/TPAS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 RELIABILITY PLANNING PROCESS FINDINGS FOR 2019-2028 ................................................................................................ 8 Finding One – Resource Adequacy .............................................................................................. 8 Finding Two – Transmission Security ........................................................................................... 8 Finding Three – Plan Risk Factors and Highlights of Potential Developments ......................... 8 PEAKER RULE SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Con Edison Assessment ............................................................................................................. 15 Year 2023 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Year 2025 .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • First Name Last Name Company Title
    First Name Last Name Company Title Jerry Golden 3-GIS, LLC Chief Operating officer Alex Davies 3M Company Brendan Kennedy 3M Company Mower & Asssociates - PR Brian Brooks 3M Electrical Markets Division Lab Randy Flamm 3M Electrical Markets Division Sales David Iverson 3M Electrical Markets Division Lab Jane Kovacs 3M Electrical Markets Division PR Manager Lynette Lawson 3M Electrical Markets Division Marketing Kevin Pfaum 3M Electrical Markets Division Trade Show Mgr. Ed Scott 3M Electrical Markets Division Marketing Steve Willett 3M Electrical Markets Division Lab Corey Willson 3M Electrical Markets Division Sales Sinan Yordem 3M Electrical Markets Division Lab Tony Althaus A. Y. McDonald Mfg. Co. National Gas Sales Manager Nate Harbin A. Y. McDonald Mfg. Co. Midwest Gas Products Territory Manager Shannon Bromley A+ Corporation Product Manager Mark Imboden ABB, Inc. Channel Partner Manager Scott Peterson ABB, Inc. U.S. Sales manager Burton Reed ABB, Inc. Business Development Manager Brad Steer Accela Inc Sales Rep. Quan Vu Accela Right of Way Management Sales Rep Peter Johansson Accudyne Industries Executive Vice President David Bettinghaus Advance Engineering Corp. Regional Sales Manager Thomas Brown Advance Engineering Corp. President Martin Malcolm Advance Engineering Corporation Larry Head AECOM National Practice Leader, Gas Utilities Carrie Kozyrski AECOM Project Manager Mike Musial AECOM Director of Energy Services Steven Petto AECOM Alternative Delivery Manager, Power & Industrial James Savaiano AECOM Project Manager Scot Macomber
    [Show full text]