First of all, we’ve seen a brief clip from this morning on Fox News on the opposition to mountaintop removal in Tennessee. The controversial practice of mountaintop removal has all the me’s, we’s, and them’s across the state up in arms. A longer piece is scheduled to air this evening, and we’ll be on the lookout for that.

Now, besides the fact that most of our coal companies are owned out-of-state, we’ve gone over the fact that TVA didn’t use any Tennessee coal last year, and that a weakening Central Appalachian coal market is increasingly reliant on sending its product overseas. The New York Times recently did an excellent piece on what more coal exports could mean for American coal, export terminals in the Pacific Northwest and impoverished extraction communities. According to the NYT piece:

Last year, American coal exports set a record of 125 million tons in sales, roughly double the volume in 2009, with most of that going to Europe. Exports fell this spring because of slower Chinese demand for steelmaking coal. But energy experts say the big potential market for American coal remains in Asia, and several proposed Pacific Northwest export terminals would have the capacity to nearly double current exports.

125 million tons in exports last year! That’s more coal than the amount mined in West Virginia and Tennessee combined. And — in what is apparently the new standard for the United State’s coal industry — it’s “better than something happening in China®.”

Coal experts say the [Powder River Basin] could export 10 times what it does today if the Pacific Northwest terminals were approved. And industry executives insist that the basin’s low-sulfur coal is far cleaner than much of the coal burned in Chinese and other Asian cities.

Coal has walked the Crow Nation of Montana back into the same impoverished, dead-end corner that much of Appalachia finds itself in, and the political leaders are saying all the same things. For some reason, hearing this type of rhetoric coming from elsewhere in the country, rather than from some Appalachian elected official for the millionth time, really drives home how absolutely insane it sounds to continue to rely solely on the production of a fossil fuel at the expense of all short- and long-term well-being.

The Crow Nation chairman, Darrin Old Coyote, insisted that coal was a gift to his community that goes back to the tribe’s creation story. “Coal is life,” he said. “It feeds families and pays the bills.”

Of course, we all know the truth — coal is dead. Not to mention that there is a good, scientific, peer-reviewed mountain of data indicating that is not only is coal not “life,” but that coal is in fact the enemy of life.

Our very own Manchester, Tenn., was ground zero of clean energy capitalism this week. The rural-utopia turns grooving urban musicopolis for a week every June, provided Bonnaroovians with 20 percent of their energy from solar power. The ability to meet twenty percent of demand with renewables is expected in rural Colorado by 2020 as Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a bill that will double the amount of renewable energy by that year. As the President of Conservation Colorado says, “In the end, this will be better for consumers, offering more predictable costs than old fossil fuels.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, fresh off the news that their fossil plants are facing layoffs, have had a similar run of bad news from the nuclear projects. After TVA’s Sequoyah and Watts Bar plants were named among the worst in the nation for whistleblower complaints, the future “re-animation” of the Bellefonte nuclear plant looks in serious jeopardy, as TVA announced that it will cut more than 500 jobs and significant funds for the project. U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is “is disappointed, and it’s back to the board for TVA’s planners.”

According to TVA’s senior vice president, Mike Skaggs, milder winters, the availability and price of natural gas and the effects of a slower economy have all affected TVA’s power sales. Skaggs said TVA is working on a new integrated resource plan which evaluates the utility’s power generation assets and how they will be used or expanded to meet future electricity needs.

Our friends at the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League highlight a disturbing statistic. Citizens who live near Browns Ferry nuclear plant have significantly higher death rates than their non-nuclearized Tennessee brethren. According to a BREDL press release:

“The study found potential links between radioactive emissions from Browns Ferry and adverse health effects in seven counties near and downwind of the plant.

Yikes.

Meanwhile, in uranium country, energy efficiency is increasingly the name of the game. In fact, the state just awarded the Oak Ridge Municipal Center $200,000 for energy savings upgrades. Nice work guys!

In other good news, Tennessee is working with the U.S. Department of Energy on a pretty cool electric car project, which sounds awesome to me since it only costs about 97 cents per gallon to get around in one!

Video of the Week

This old newsreel footage from 1933 talks about the formation of the Tennessee Valley Authority. See anything that looks familiar?

Image of the Week
Pre-TVA, Chattanooga as Atlantis in a 58-foot flood. Seen here from Lookout Mountain:

That is for this week! Let us know what you’re seeing in the comments, and be safe out there in this weather.

Section 1. Purpose:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 forbids purging of documents when any organization – nonprofit or for-profit – is under federal investigation. It is a federal crime to alter, cover up, falsify, or destry any document to prevent its use in an official proceeding. The purpose of this Policy is to:

1. balance the need of the Corporation to maintain accurate and appropriate files with the challenge of limited physical and electronic space for archives;
2. preserve the institutional history for strategic planning, regulatory compliance, and legal purposes;
3. provide guidelines for proper disposal of records
4. prevent destruction of relevant documentation if the organization is involved in litigation.

Section 2. Violation of Policy:

The Corporation takes seriously its obligations to preserve information relating to litigation, audits, and investigations. Failure on the part of employees to follow this policy can result in possible civil and criminal sanctions against the Corporation and its employees, trustees and officers and possble disciplinary action against responsible individuals up to and including termination of employment.

Section 3. Policy Statement:

The Corporation, including its staff, trustees, violunteers, committee members and outsiders (independent contractors via agreement with the Corporation), are responsible for and will retain documents in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and applicable laws. From time to time the Executive Director or the Chair of the Board of Trustees may issue a “legal hold,” suspending the destruction of any records due to pending, threatened, or otherwise reasonably foreseeable litigation, audits, government investigations, or similar proceedings. No records specified in any legal hold may be destryed, even if the scheduled destruction date has passed, until the legal hold is withdrawn in writing by the person placing the hold.

Section 4. Document Destruction:

The Corporation’s staff, trustees, violunteers, committee members and outsiders (independent contractors via agreement with the Corporation) are required to honor the following rules:

1. Paper or electronic documents indicated under the terms for retention in the following Section 5. are retained for the minimum required period as provided by law. All paper and electronic documents are stored in a manner and location in which they are reasonably secure. The Corporation backsup and archives all electronic documents and conducts a regular review of back up and archiving procedures and systems. The Corporation conducts regular checkups for reliability of back up and archiving systems.
2. All other paper documents may be detroyed after three years;
3. All other electronic documents may be deleted from all individual computers, databases, networks and back-up storage after one year;
4. No paper or electronic documents will be destroyed or deleted if an official investigation or private litigation against the Corporation is underway or expected; and
5. No paper or electronic documents will be destroyed or deleted as required to comply with government auditing standards (Single Audit Act).

Section 5. Record Retention:

The following table indicates the minimum retention requirements for all documents, written and electronic, and is provided as guidance.

Section 6. Annual Review:

To ensure the Corporation operates in a manner consistent with this Policy, annual review of the record retention requirements and procedures are conducted. Annual review is conducted by the Corporation’s Operations Manager, who reports to the Board of Trustees to confirm compliance or noncompliance with record retention requirements and whether procedures should be updated or amended.

The purpose of the conflict of interest policy is to:

1. assure the highest level of ethical conduct of persons employed by or involved in the governance of the Corporation in all that pertains to the Corporation;
2. avoid public perceptions and financial consequences detrimental to the Corporation that could arise from the misuse, or perception of misuse, of an individual’s position or influence; and
3. protect this Corporation’s interest when it is contemplating entering into a transaction or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of an officer or trustee of the Corporation or might result in a possible excess benefit transaction.

This policy is intended to supplement but not replace any applicable state and federal laws governing conflict of interest applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations.

Section 2. Definitions:

Interested Person

Any trustee, principal officer, or member of a committee with governing board delegated powers, who has a direct or indirect financial interest, as defined below, is an interested person.

Financial Interest

A person has a financial interest if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment, or family:

1. An ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction or arrangement,
2. A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or individual with which the Corporation has a transaction or arrangement, or
3. A potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Corporation is negotiating a transaction or arrangement.

Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are not insubstantial.
A financial interest is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Under Section 2. of this Article, a person who has a financial interest may have a conflict of interest only if the appropriate governing board or committee decides that a conflict of interest exists.

Section 3. Procedures:

Duty to Disclose

In connection with any actual or possible conflict of interest, an interested person must disclose the existence of the financial interest and be given the opportunity to disclose all material facts to the trustees and members of committees with governing board delegated powers considering the proposed transaction or arrangement. An interested person may not vote or lobby on the matter to be determined.

Recusal of Self

Any trustee may recuse himself or herself at any time from involvement in any decision in which the trustee believes he or she has or may have a conflict of interest, without going through the process for determining whether a conflict of interest exists.

Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists

After disclosure of the financial interest and all material facts, and after any discussion with the interested person, s/he shall leave the governing board or committee meeting while the determination of a conflict of interest is discussed and voted upon. The remaining board or committee members shall decide if a conflict of interest exists.

Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest

1. An interested person may make a presentation at the governing board or committee meeting, but after the presentation, s/he shall leave the meeting during the discussion of, and the vote on, the transaction or arrangement involving the possible conflict of interest. An interested person may not vote or lobby on the matter to be determined.
2. The chairperson of the governing board or committee shall, if appropriate, appoint a disinterested person or committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement.
3. After exercising due diligence, the governing board or committee shall determine whether the Corporation can obtain with reasonable efforts a more advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest. The governing board or committee may consider whether the transaction or arrangement involving the interested trustee or employee is (1) consistent with the Corporation’s charitable purposes, (2) in the Corporation’s best interest or for its benefit, and (3) fair and reasonable to the Corporation.
4. If a more advantageous transaction or arrangement is not reasonably possible under circumstances not producing a conflict of interest, the governing board or committee shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested trustees whether the transaction or arrangement is in the Corporation’s best interest, for its own benefit, and whether it is fair and reasonable. In conformity with the above determination, it shall make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction or arrangement.

Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy

If the governing board or committee has reasonable cause to believe a member has failed to disclose actual or possible conflicts of interest, it shall inform the member of the basis for such belief and afford the member an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose.

1. If, after hearing the member’s response and after making further investigation as warranted by the circumstances, the governing board or committee determines the member has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action.

Section 4. Records of Proceedings:

The minutes of the governing board and all committees with board delegated powers shall contain:

1. The names of the persons who disclosed or otherwise were found to have a financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict of interest, the nature of the financial interest, any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present, and the governing board’s or committee’s decision as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed.
2. The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the transaction or arrangement, the content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement, the process for determining that payments or other compensation, where relevant, were reasonable and did not or do not exceed fair market value, a record of any votes taken in connection with the proceedings, and such other information as may be relevant.

Section 5. Compensation:

1. A voting member of the governing board who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Corporation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.
2. A voting member of any committee whose jurisdiction includes compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Corporation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.
3. No voting member of the governing board or any committee whose jurisdiction includes compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Corporation, either individually or collectively, is prohibited from providing information to any committee regarding compensation.

Section 6. Annual Statements:

Each trustee, principal officer and member of a committee with governing board delegated powers shall annually sign a statement which affirms such person:

1. Has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy,
2. Has read and understands the policy,
3. Has agreed to comply with the policy, and
4. Understands the Corporation is charitable and in order to maintain its federal tax exemption, it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes.

Section 7. Periodic Reviews:

To ensure the Corporation operates in a manner consistent with charitable purposes and does not engage in activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status, periodic reviews shall be conducted. The periodic reviews shall, at a minimum, include the following subjects:

1. Whether compensation arrangements and benefits are reasonable, based on competent survey information, and the result of arm’s length bargaining,
2. Whether partnerships, joint ventures, and arrangements with management organizations conform to the Corporation’s written policies, are properly recorded, reflect reasonable investment or payments for goods and services, further charitable purposes and do not result in inurement, impermissible private benefit or in an excess benefit transaction.

Section 8. Use of Outside Experts:

When conducting the periodic reviews as provided for in Article VII, the Corporation may, but need not, use outside advisors. If outside experts are used, their use shall not relieve the governing board of its responsibility for ensuring periodic reviews are conducted.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), sponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act, with Appalachian Voices and citizens lobbyists at the 8th annual End Mountaintop Removal Week in Washington.

The Clean Water Protection Act, HR 1837, was introduced last month with 45 original cosponsors.

Since then, more than two dozen additional members of Congress have recognized the need to protect our communities and rivers from pollution caused by mountaintop removal. The bill, which restores a key protection of the Clean Water Act, now has 71 cosponsors.

On the bill are returning cosponsors and first-time supporters, Democrats and Republicans, freshmen and senior representatives. 71 cosponsors is great progress, but it’s not enough. We need to keep up this momentum and beat our past record of 172 cosponsors.

Is your member of Congress a cosponsor? Write your Rep. now and urge them to cosponsor the Clean Water Protection Act!

The Corporation requires trustees, officers, employees, and volunteers to observe high standards of business and personal ethics in the conduct of their duties and responsibilities. As employees and representatives of the organization, we must practice honesty and integrity in fulfilling our responsibilities and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

Section 2. Reporting Responsibility:

It is the responsibility of all trustees, officers, employees, and volunteers to comply with the Corporation’s policies and to report violations or suspected violations of the law in accordance wih this Policy.

Section 3. No Retaliation:

No trustee, officer, employee, or volunteer, who in good faith reorts a violation of the law, shall suffer harassment, retaliation, or adverse employment consequence even if the report is mistaken, or against any employee or individual who assists in the investigation of a reported violation. An employee, officer or trustee who retaliates against someone who has reported a violation of the law in good faith is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or removal from the organization. This Whistleblower Protection Policy is intended to encourage and enable employees and others to raise concerns about illegal activity within the organization.

Section 4. Reporting Alleged Violations:

Officers, trustees, and employees are expected to report suspected violations of the Corporation’s policies or illegal activities to the Executive Director or to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. If either is alleged to be in violation of the law, then the report should be submitted to the Compliance Officer. A submitted report will be investigated by the Audit Committee with assistance from the Compliance Officer and from the Chairman and the Executive Director, if appropriate. The Executive Director is authorized to retain legal counsel on behalf of the Corporation in connection with alleged violations under this Article. The Compliance Officer is authorized to retain legal counsel on behalf of the Corporation to address a complaint under this Article if the complaint involves allegations of wrongdoing by the Chairman or the Executive Director. A report of findings of the internal investigation will be submitted by the Compliance Officer or his or her designee to the Board with recommendations for action.

Section 5. Compliance Officer:

The Corporation’s Compliance Officer is responsible for investigating and resolving all reported complaints and allegations concerning violations of Corporation policies or illegal activites and, at his or her discretion, shall advise the Executive Director and/or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. The Compliance Officer, or his or her designee, shall have direct access to the Audit Committee of the Board of Trustees and shall report to the Audit Committee at least annually on compliance activity. Unless otherwise specified, the Secretary of the Board of Trustees serves as Corporation’s Compliance Officer and is appointed annually by the Board of Trustees. The Compliance Officer shall not serve simultaneously as the Chair of the Personnel Committee. The Compliance Officer may serve as Chair of the Audit Committee in the event that allegations under this article are made against the named Audit Committee Chair.

Section 6. Accounting and Auditing Matters:

The Audit Committee of the Board of Trustees shall address all reported concerns or complaints regarding corporate accounting practices, internal controls, or auditing. The Compliance Officer shall immediately notify the Audit Committee of any such complaint and work with the committee until the matter is resolved.

Section 6. Acting in Good Faith:

Anyone filing a complaint concerning suspected illegal activity or a violation of Corporation policies must be acting in good faith and have reasonable grounds for believing the information disclosed indicates a violation of the law or Corporation policies. Any allegations that prove not to be substantiated and which prove to have been made maliciously or knowingly to be false will be viewed as malfeasance and addressed accordingly.

Section 7. Confidentiality:

Violations or suspected violations may be submitted on a confidential basis by the complainant or may be submitted anonymously. Reports of violations or suspected violations will be kept confidential to the extent possible, consistent with the need to conduct an adequate investigation.

Section 8. Handling of Reported Violations:

The Compliance Officer will notify the sender and acknowledge receipt of the reported violation or suspected violations within five business days. All reports will be promptly investigated and appropriate corrective action will be taken if warranted by the investigation. If action is not warranted, the Board will provide a statement explaining why corrections are not necessary.

Don’t forget to tell your friends about Tennessee Tuesdays.

Read the latest Tennessee Tuesday posts

Check out more Tennessee Tuesday posts

Hello all you fans of the great state of Tennessee!

Want to keep up with the latest out of the Volunteer State? Subscribe today to receive our “Tennessee Tuesday” blog posts in your inbox.

Each week, our Tennessee Director, J.W. Randolph delivers an entertaining and informative round-up of news on clean energy issues, mountaintop removal coal mining, TVA doings, and much more.

For instance, did you know that:

• Tennessee has 142 solar companies
• A state legislative panel refused to hear testimony on the popular and bi-partisan Scenic Vistas Protection Act, despite endorsement from the Tennessee Conservatives Union.
• Solar jobs per capita nationally: Tennessee is ranked 13th.
• TVA used exactly *zero* tons of coal from Tennessee in 2012.

Subscribe to Tennessee Tuesdays today!

–> BONUS: Each week, JW, a consumate guitar picker, adds a link to a new song he’s taken a shine to, like this latest one, entitled “Tennessee.” http://onthestairs.bandcamp.com/track/tennessee

Ivan in Ecuador where he has helped with an organization which works to protect threatened birds

Ivan grew up in San Francisco and attended college on the West Coast. His interests during that time morphed from natural history, ecology and conservation biology to the tropics and the study of its avian wildlife. Ivan maintained his recreational interest in birds and his commitment to conservation throughout his college years, and was impassioned to learn how birds are intricately tied to the overall health of their surroundings.

“Birds are often an indicator species of how well a conservation program is working in an area,” says Ivan. “Bird conservation can apply to protecting animal life in general since one must conserve bird habitats, which in turn helps conserve other species.”

Ivan’s favorite winged creatures to study are neotropical birds, or those from the Latin American tropics. He has spent time working and researching in Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and most recently in Ecuador, where he works closely ― both remotely and side-by-side ― with an organization that protects the country’s threatened birds. And, though he is removed from the Appalachian mountains back in the States, his enthusiasm for the area’s wealth of animal and plant species, and their need for conservation, is vibrant.

Ivan explains that Appalachia is quite diverse in its trees and salamander species, and he feels that energy extraction in the region is devastating to the unique medley of animal and plant life found here. “Appalachia is an area of great cultural heritage as well,” he says, adding that people’s lives and personal stories are being uprooted by the current pursuit of coal. “Mountaintop removal is a tragedy on every level.”

Ivan feels the best way to offer protection to an area is not always obvious. “People say ‘think globally, act locally,’ and while that’s a helpful way to think, it is not enough in many cases. When an industry is so powerful, such as that of coal, Ivan notes, equal levels of local and national legislative work are crucial to conservation efforts.

Ivan’s interest in mountaintop removal led him to ilovemountains.org and now he continues to track the campaign to stop mountaintop removal coal mining. He has been a member of Appalachian Voices since 2008.

Ivan still lives in San Francisco where he works for the March Foundation, a non-profit organization with programs that support higher education and human welfare. Through the foundation, he and his allies help support ornithological research by aiding a variety of partners that study birds.

People can come to conservation projects from all backgrounds, Ivan says, and in turn they not only help protect the local wildlife and plant life, but also help revitalize the quality of living for people who call those places home.