Political Discussion

[jacko]

Romney is your classic country club Rockefeller Republican who tend to be more liberal than Joe Lieberman. If he wins, I expect another etch sketch shake. He will ignore the foreigners(bible thumping conservative base) and cut deals with Reid and the moderates in the House. The conservatives will be sidelined.

Thanks for the laugh.

[GoingDown]

He is no match for Harry Reid. Reid would just shut the Senate down.

But Romney could just act like Obama and use the EPA and executive orders to further his own agenda rather than going through the normal route of Congress. In this case, Romney could help keep electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses. Just the opposite of Obama's agenda.

[msm859]

But Romney could just act like Obama and use the EPA and executive orders to further his own agenda rather than going through the normal route of Congress. In this case, Romney could help keep electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses. Just the opposite of Obama's agenda.

Seriously? What SPECIFIC action has Obama done to lead you to the believe his agenda is to HURT "electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses"?

[GoingDown]

Seriously? What SPECIFIC action has Obama done to lead you to the believe his agenda is to HURT "electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses"?

"The impact of new EPA coal power plant emission reduction requirements (Re. “Fact Sheet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants”, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf) not only will prematurely shutdown existing coal power plants, but also will become a major barrier to future new construction. Another concern with these new EPA coal power regulations is that current power grids’ reliabilities could also be put a risk to increased brown- and black-outs (Re. “Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulations”, http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA%20Section.pdf). The EPA has removed potential power grid reliability concerns and considerations during their recent rules-making process.

Possible and likely very significant changes to this part of the Obama “all-of-the-above” energy plan appear to be deferred until after the election. What has not been covered in the latest Obama energy plan is the EPA’s undeclared war on coal. Despite the general reference to supporting (more expensive) ‘clean coal’, the EPA is actively developing many additional new regulations that will make future coal development and its viability much less feasible. Near future EPA regulations include: coal ash restrictions, increasingly strict power plant MACT/NSR (maximum available controls technology /new source reviews that will significantly reduced SOX, NOX, PM, etc.), substantial reduced CO2 emissions, cooling water discharge restrictions, etc.

It’s time for voters to make a choice for the next President. Do you choose the current Administration’s energy plan of significant doublespeak in support of fossil fuels, and clearly higher priority on Government mandated and (added deficit spending) support for renewable energy development? Or, do you choose a new Administration whose plan is empowering the Free Markets to develop the most economic, environmentally responsible, and secure energy sources to help facilitate a more rapid U.S. economy recovery and better position average consumers to afford higher cost renewable energy? Addressing the next priorities such as climate change should be done by a truly bipartisan process between all parties in Congress and led by a President with the greatest demonstrated ability to work with both parties on issues critical to the future of our country."

President Obama claims he’s overseen the creation fewer regulations than his predecessors. But his administration has actually issued far more expensive and economically costly regulations, adding billions of dollars in compliance costs for businesses and job creators. The red tape is documented in a new report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Next week the House takes up the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which includes seven measures that would ease the government’s growing burden on businesses and the economy.
The report cites a Gallup poll from earlier this year that found 46 percent of small business owners are not hiring because they are worried about new government regulations, and 48 percent say they are worried about the potential costs of health care.
Homeowners are also being affected by new regulations. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency removed an opt-out provision for its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. The rule requires that renovations to homes built before 1978 be supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPA-certified firm.
According to the report, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) says the elimination of the opt-out has led homeowners to explore underground contractors that do not comply with EPA regulations at all, and that the opt-out had saved the industry approximately $500 million in compliance costs.
In addition to current regulations, the report found that proposed regulations continue to generate uncertainty and could result in significant additional costs to the economy.
The EPA is proposing to redefine “solid waste,” removing specific recycling exclusions from current hazardous waste regulations. As a result, the regulations would even apply to in-house recycling intended for internal use, such as scrap metal yards recycling scrap metal. The Business Roundtable estimates the rule will cost more than $100 million annually in documentation and analysis costs, making it more expensive for businesses to recycle.
According to the NFIB, the EPA is also proposing to expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include depressions and farm ponds that don’t impede the flow of rivers, giving the agency greatly expanded regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.
Other proposed regulations would advance the administration’s pro-union agenda while ignoring union political activity.
Last year, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule requiring employers subject to the National Labor Relations Act to post a notice of employee rights under the law. The notice focuses on employee rights to unionize and collectively bargain, but doesn’t include rights to object to the use of union dues to support political causes. According to the NLRB’s own estimates, the rule could cost 6 million employers an estimated $386.4 million. Much of the rule has been blocked by courts, but business organizations remain concerned about the implications that could result if it is allowed to move forward.
In total, The Heritage Foundation has calculated that the Obama administration adopted 106 major regulations in its first three years. That’s nearly four times the 28 major regulations adopted in the first three years of the Bush administration. Those regulations came at a cost of $8.1 billion, compared to the $46 billion imposed under Obama by the same point in his presidency.
Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the report explains why job creators are struggling to put Americans back to work under an increasing regulatory burden.
“Our government can create the environment for the private sector to grow jobs. But under this administration, it won’t. Small businesses, and not the government, are the primary driver of job creation in this country,” Issa said. “This report explains why job creators say they are struggling to put Americans back to work under an ever increasing regulatory burden.”

[msm859]

"The impact of new EPA coal power plant emission reduction requirements (Re. “Fact Sheet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants”, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf) not only will prematurely shutdown existing coal power plants, but also will become a major barrier to future new construction. Another concern with these new EPA coal power regulations is that current power grids’ reliabilities could also be put a risk to increased brown- and black-outs (Re. “Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulations”, http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA%20Section.pdf). The EPA has removed potential power grid reliability concerns and considerations during their recent rules-making process.
I am all in favor of shutting down coal plants. We have more than enough natural gas that is price competitive and has 1/3 the pollution
Possible and likely very significant changes to this part of the Obama “all-of-the-above” energy plan appear to be deferred until after the election. What has not been covered in the latest Obama energy plan is the EPA’s undeclared war on coal. Despite the general reference to supporting (more expensive) ‘clean coal’, the EPA is actively developing many additional new regulations that will make future coal development and its viability much less feasible. Near future EPA regulations include: coal ash restrictions, increasingly strict power plant MACT/NSR (maximum available controls technology /new source reviews that will significantly reduced SOX, NOX, PM, etc.), substantial reduced CO2 emissions, cooling water discharge restrictions, etc.

It’s time for voters to make a choice for the next President. Do you choose the current Administration’s energy plan of significant doublespeak in support of fossil fuels, and clearly higher priority on Government mandated and (added deficit spending) support for renewable energy development? Or, do you choose a new Administration whose plan is empowering the Free Markets to develop the most economic, environmentally responsible,You seriously think Romney or his colleagues are not going to put profit before environment? and secure energy sources to help facilitate a more rapid U.S. economy recovery and better position average consumers to afford higher cost renewable energy? Addressing the next priorities such as climate change should be done by a truly bipartisan process between all parties in Congress and led by a President with the greatest demonstrated ability to work with both parties on issues critical to the future of our country."Again, SERIOUSLY? The Republicans from day 1 openly admitted their most important goal was to make sure Obama was a 1 term president. The Senate essentially did a filibuster on EVERYTHING. The Republicans do NOT believe in climate change how are you going to get a bipartisan solution? They want to get rid of the EPA.

President Obama claims he’s overseen the creation fewer regulations than his predecessors. But his administration has actually issued far more expensive and economically costly regulations, adding billions of dollars in compliance costs for businesses and job creators. The red tape is documented in a new report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Next week the House takes up the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which includes seven measures that would ease the government’s growing burden on businesses and the economy.
The report cites a Gallup poll from earlier this year that found 46 percent of small business owners are not hiring because they are worried about new government regulationsNot True. Business owners hire people when the demand for the goods or services they are selling warrant it. It is not because they are worried about some unknown regulation - or health care costs., and 48 percent say they are worried about the potential costs of health care.
Homeowners are also being affected by new regulations. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency removed an opt-out provision for its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. The rule requires that renovations to homes built before 1978 be supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPA-certified firm.
.............
In total, The Heritage FoundationNow this is funny. You want to cite the Heritage Foundation - you know they were the ones who first pushed the idea of what is now called "Obamacare" and the individual mandate - back when the Republicans believed in personal responsibility. has calculated that the Obama administration adopted 106 major regulations in its first three years. That’s nearly four times the 28 major regulations adopted in the first three years of the Bush administration. Those regulations came at a cost of $8.1 billion, compared to the $46 billion imposed under Obama by the same point in his presidency.
Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the report explains why job creators are struggling to put Americans back to work under an increasing regulatory burden.
“Our government can create the environment for the private sector to grow jobs. But under this administration, it won’t. Small businesses, and not the government, are the primary driver of job creation in this country,” Issa said. “This report explains why job creators say they are struggling to put Americans back to work under an ever increasing regulatory burden.”

Romney has throughout his life only cared about himself and a few close friends. You talk about double speak yet Romney has taken both sides of virtually every issue. You believe he can cut taxes 20%, increase military spending and balance the budget? That is fantasy land. Why don't you research how many jobs will actually be created by pushing a green economy.

[jacko]

Are you saying that electricity and gas are not flowing now?

But Romney could just act like Obama and use the EPA and executive orders to further his own agenda rather than going through the normal route of Congress. In this case, Romney could help keep electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses. Just the opposite of Obama's agenda.

[jacko]

Dirty coal is on its last leg out. There is no turning back despite Romney's etch sketch speak. Utilities are switching to natural gas.

[QUOTE=GoingDown;586680]"The impact of new EPA coal power plant emission reduction requirements (Re. “Fact Sheet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants”, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf) not only will prematurely shutdown existing coal power plants, but also will become a major barrier to future new construction. Another concern with these new EPA coal power regulations is that current power grids’ reliabilities could also be put a risk to increased brown- and black-outs (Re. “Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulations”, http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA%20Section.pdf). The EPA has removed potential power grid reliability concerns and considerations during their recent rules-making process.

[GoingDown]

I am all in favor of shutting down coal plants. We have more than enough natural gas that is price competitive and has 1/3 the pollution.





.

No, coal is significantly cheaper than natural gas. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have enough to last for hundreds of years. Coal is only good for one thing-- generating electricity. But natural gas can be used for many things.

I think we should use coal and nuclear to generate electricity.

Natural gas should be saved back to use as a source of fuel for our cars, for cooking, and heating our homes, and fueling our hot water heaters, etc. And it is used for industrial purposes as well.

One of my relatives runs his trucks on natural but compressed natural gas, and according to him, he gets great mileage with natural gas, and his engine is extremely clean and needs far fewer repairs than engines ran on gasoline.

But here is an important point to keep in mind... you are an anomaly.

Most environmentalists see natural gas as an evil fuel that releases deadly CO2 into the atmosphere and will kill us all, so it must be gotten rid of, too. First they will get rid of coal, then they will get rid of natural gas.

And there is nothing to jump to.

Solar and wind energy are pipe dreams. They'll never produce the amount of energy we need to run this economy.

Ultimately, it will make the cost of everything skyrocket, and ultimately, only the elite will be able to afford to travel from state to state, and live a high standard of living. The rest of us will be serfs. And I think that's really what they want.

The average foot soldier in the environmentalist movement thinks they are doing good, but in reality they are just "useful idiots" for a movement that will eventually take away our standard of living and reduce our freedom of movement and our freedoms in general.

.....

[GoingDown]

Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Those are his own words, in his own voice!


I am not making this up!


Watch the YouTube Video above, if you don't believe me.


Everything is going to cost more.



Much of Southern Arizona’s water supply comes via the Central Arizona Project (CAP) which takes water from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu, and distributes it over 300 miles of canal and 3,000 feet up in elevation to Tucson (see map below). Electricity for the 14 pumping stations comes from the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station (NGS) near Page, Arizona. That station supplies 2,250 megawatts from three 750-MW units. The coal comes from the Kayenta mine on the Navajo Reservation 78 miles southeast of the station. (eco-friendly-- doesn't have to be transported a long distance, but no, that's not good enough for eco nuts!). The mine is operated by Peabody Western Coal Company. The electric plant is under fire from the EPA, for among other things, air quality in the Grand Canyon. The plant may fall victim to the EPA’s war on coal

According to a report from KSL.com, “Owners of the Navajo Generating Station say an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to clear the air in the region’s national parks may push the plant into an unacceptable financial situation. They’ve indicated it could force a shutdown as early as 2017.” “A shutdown of the plant would put nearly 1,000 people out of work on the Navajo Indian Reservation that is already deeply mired in unemployment and poverty.” (Ultimately, the environmentalist movement is an elitist movement, they do not care about the average person, nor the poor. Ultimately, they feel there are too many humans on the earth, and the surplus population should be killed off.) “The owners insist they cannot spend more than $1 billion on environmental improvements without a guarantee they’ll be allowed to operate beyond 2019. The owners are several public agencies and utilities, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Tucson Electric Power and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.”

Critics allege that emissions from the plant contribute to regional haze. However, even if the plant builds the required upgrades, there is no guarantee that the change in haze would be noticeable.

According to information from the Salt River Project, one of the owners of the plant, “NGS complies with all federal air quality standards and emission limitations. Electrostatic precipitators capture 99% of the fly ash, which is recycled for use in concrete, cement and other construction materials. Limestone scrubbers remove over 90% of SO2 emissions. Installation of low NOx burners and separated overfire air technology reduces NOx emissions by approximately 40%.”

The new “haze” rule from EPA could cause NGS to shut down, eliminating a major contributor to the economy of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the city of Page, Coconino County, and the state of Arizona. And, a shutdown would stop the pumps supplying water to Southern Arizona. The EPA ‘haze” rule will cause three of five generators at the coal-fired Four Corners Power Plant in northwest New Mexico to shut down also.

Remember, during the 2008 presidential campaign candidate Obama said, “that under his cap-and-trade plan, “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” (CNN) Also during the 2008 campaign Joe Biden said the Obama policy was “no coal plants here in America.” (Arizona Daily Star).

In contrast to Obama policy, Germany is building 23 new coal-fire plants. Although Germany is a leader in solar energy installation, they need the coal plants because they found that solar energy is unreliable and too expensive.

Maybe the war on coal is a plan to create jobs. Obama could hire thousands of people to form bucket brigades to move water along the CAP canal.

Other nations have already gone down this road and determined that green energy really is not reliable nor cost effective. Remember? Canada pulled out of Kyoto because it was too expensive, and they realized that it was just a political farce-- as long as China and India get to do whatever they want in terms of burning coal, it would do no good for Canada to lower its standard of living unilaterally. Spain tried green energy and found it to be a complete failure. And yet, we can't seem to learn from the bad experiences of other nations.


The Arizona Public Service Co. could decommission three generating units at the coal-fired Four Corners Power Plant near Farmington by the end of the year – a measure expected to improve air quality throughout the region.

The closure of the units – the oldest at the plant – is contingent on the company completing a new coal contract with Navajo Mine located on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation, which supplies the plant.

Closing the three units would reduce nitrogen-oxide emissions by 36 percent, mercury by 61 percent, particulates by 43 percent, carbon monoxide by 30 percent and sulfur dioxide by 24 percent, according to news release from Arizona Public Service Co.

The power plant employs 549 workers, 74 percent of whom are Navajo Nation tribal members. The company said there will be no layoffs, but the closure could have a substantial economic impact on the tribe.

The closure is at minimum a year sooner than Navajo Nation officials were anticipating. That forced the tribe to reduce its revenue projections for 2013 by $10 million, said Erny Zah, spokesman for the Office of the President of the Navajo Nation.

“It’s going to be a challenging time for Navajo Nation when it comes to the closure of those three units,” Zah said. “It’s going to affect the taxes and revenue we get from the plant itself, and secondly going to affect revenue from the coal mine.”

The plant will require personnel through the decommissioning, but it has not determined how many employees will be needed after the process is complete, said APS spokesman Damon Gross.

The company plans to attain that number through normal attrition, he said. Several employees are either at or approaching retirement eligibility, and there are other employment opportunities in the company.

“These are important jobs in the community, and we want to do all we can to preserve that source of employment,” he said.

Arizona Public Service would need to install selective catalytic-reduction equipment at the three units to meet recent Environmental Protection Agency requirements. The upgrade would cost more than $568 million, Gross said.

Instead of upgrading the three units, the company is purchasing Southern California Edison’s 48 percent ownership in Units 4 and 5 at the plant for $249 million.

APS currently owns 15 percent of the two units. Other owners include Public Service of New Mexico, Salt River Project, El Paso Electric and Tucson Electric Power.

California state law requires Southern California Edison to ends its participation in the plant by 2016.

“The better course of action would be to purchase new, cleaner and more efficient units,” Gross said.

Environmental advocates say they are not sure what the environmental impact of Units 4 and 5 will be.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is currently working on an Environmental Impact Statement of the two units and Navajo Mine, said Mike Eisenfeld, the New Mexico energy coordinator for the San Juan Citizen Alliance.

“We think that (the statement) is going to raise a lot of questions,” Eisenfeld said. “That’s what we’re looking for in the impact statement. What will happen with the facility, the indirect and direct impact and what the past impacts have been.”

The power plant’s capacity would be reduced by 560 megawatts, from 2,100 to 1,540 megawatts. But Gross said acquiring additional ownership of the Units 4 and 5 is a net gain for APS customers.

[GoingDown]

Yes, he does want higher gas prices...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8&feature=related

And here is how he feels about coal (this is a long one, but watch the whole thing, I was shocked to hear him actually admit it so openly):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw&feature=related

Just pass it on to consumers, we love to pay more for everything...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRuXrbjlrRg&feature=related

[jacko]

When you compare the gas price to the rate of inflation, gas is still cheaper than other commodities. The gas price hasn't stop people from purchasing vehicles, subscribing to $100 plus monthly smartphone, cable etc.. This nonsense of high gas price is a red herring. Gas in Germany is like $8 plus per gallon, and their economy and way of life has not collapsed but thrived.

[msm859]

Yes, he does want higher gas prices...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8&feature=related

And here is how he feels about coal (this is a long one, but watch the whole thing, I was shocked to hear him actually admit it so openly):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw&feature=related

Just pass it on to consumers, we love to pay more for everything...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRuXr...eature=related

What is the price of not dealing with climate change? How many billion dollar storms are we going to have each year? Coal is bad, bad, bad. I would actually be in favor of a higher gas tax cut if it was used solely for making us more energy independent and efficient.

[IBroke]

Dirty coal is on its last leg out. There is no turning back despite Romney's etch sketch speak.

And there is it again, the part where you have to ask yourself which Romney is actually the "true" Romney? The Romney pro coal or the Romney against it. And yes, there is one against it as well, no matter what he claimed during the debate:

[GoingDown]

What is the price of not dealing with climate change? How many billion dollar storms are we going to have each year? Coal is bad, bad, bad. I would actually be in favor of a higher gas tax cut if it was used solely for making us more energy independent and efficient.

The answer is, no matter whether we voluntarily lower our standard of living or not, we are going to have a lot of them. We have always had a lot of them, even in the past when no one burned a significant amount of coal. The eastern states are geographically located where they are going to get hit over and over again, no matter what we puny humans do about it.

I am thankful I live in Arizona, where this kind of stuff just doesn't happen. The western states don't have these problems, for the most part.

List of New York hurricanes encompasses 84 tropical or subtropical cyclones that have affected the state of New York since the 17th century. The state of New York is located along the East coast of the United States, in the Northeastern portion of the country. The strongest of these storms was the 1938 New England Hurricane, which struck Long Island as a Category 3 storm on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Killing more than 600 people, it was also the deadliest. Tropical cyclones have affected the state primarily in September but have also hit during every month of the hurricane season, June through November.

I wonder what Al Gore was doing back then?

Tropical cyclones rarely make landfall on the state, although it is common for remnants of tropical cyclones to produce heavy rainfall and flooding.

between 1278 and 1438 — A major hurricane struck the modern-day New York/New Jersey area, probably the strongest in recent millennium.[1]

Too bad Al Gore wasn't around then to scold the inhabitants of the area at that time.

August 25, 1635 — A hurricane that is reported to have tracked parallel to the East Coast impacts New England and New York, although it remains unknown if any damage occurs.[2]
September 8, 1667 — A 'severe storm' is reported in Manhattan and is reported to be a continuation of a powerful hurricane which affected the Mid-Atlantic.[2]
October 29, 1693 — The Great Storm of 1693 causes severe damage on Long Island, and is reported to create the Fire Island Cut as a result of the coast-changing storm surge and waves.[2][3]
September 23, 1785 — Several large ships crash into Governors Island as a result of powerful waves which are reported to have been generated by a tropical cyclone.[3]
August 19, 1788 — A hurricane strikes New York City or Long Island and is reported to have left the west side of the Battery "laid in ruins" after severe flooding occurs.[3]

October 9, 1804 — Heavy snow falls in Eastern New York peaking at 30 inches (75 cm) as a hurricane tracks northward along the East Coast and becomes extratropical, as cold air fed into the system.[4]
September 5, 1815 — A hurricane tracks over North Carolina and parallels the East Coast before producing a heavy rainstorm in New York.[5]
September 24, 1815 — Several hundred trees fall and the majority of the fruit was stripped off apple trees just prior to harvesting time after a hurricane makes landfall on Long Island.[6]
September 16, 1816 — A possible hurricane strikes New York City, but damage remains unknown.[2]
August 9, 1817 — A tropical storm produces heavy rainfall in New York City and Long Island.[2]
September 3, 1821 — The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane results in severe damage on Long Island and is accompanied by storm surge of 13 feet (4 m). High wind causes a ship to crash on Long Island killing 17 people.[7]
June 4, 1825 — A hurricane moves off the East Coast and tracks south of New York causing several ship wrecks, and killing seven people.[3]
August 27, 1827 — High tides are reported in New York City which are caused by a hurricane offshore.[8]
August 1, 1830 – A hurricane passes to the east of New York and produces gale-force winds to New York City and Long Island.[9]
October 4, 1841 — Gale–force winds affect New York City as a hurricane tracks north along the East Coast of the United States. Damage is estimated at $2 million (1841 USD, $41 million 2007 USD).[10]
October 13, 1846 — The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 tracks inland, causing some damage to New York City.[3]
October 6, 1849 — Severe structural damage occurs in New York City and Long Island with the passage of a hurricane to the east.[3]
July 19, 1850 — A hurricane destroys a Coney Island bath house and causes heavy rain, although damage is unknown.[3] This storm destroyed the ship Elizabeth off Fire Island and drowned American transcendentalist Margaret Fuller.
August 24, 1850 — A storm that is reported to be a hurricane affects New York and New England although there is no known damage.[2]
September 9, 1854 — A hurricane brushes the East Coast from Florida to New England causing rain on Long Island.[3]
September 16, 1858 — Low barometric pressure of 28.87 mb at Sag Harbor is reported, and is thought to be associated with a tropical cyclone which causes no known damage.[3]
September 6, 1869 — A category 3 hurricane makes landfall in Rhode Island and brushes Long Island, which is affected by rain, although minimal damage resulted from the storm.[3]
October 28, 1872 — A tropical storm passes over New York City and Long Island.[11]
October 1, 1874 — New York City and the Hudson Valley receives rainfall after a minimal tropical storm tracked over Eastern New York.[11]
September 19, 1876 — The remnants of the San Felipe hurricane track over western New York State, although damage is unknown.[11]
October 24, 1878 — The state is affected by tropical storm-force winds and heavy rain with the passage of a hurricane, which made landfall in Virginia.[11][12]
August 22, 1888 — A tropical storm tracks over New York City before tracking north along the East Coast of the United States.[11]
August 24, 1893 — Hog Island is washed away by strong storm surge associated with a tropical storm of unknown strength.[3] According to HURDAT, this was a Category 1 hurricane that struck the western end of the Rockaway Peninsula, passing through Brooklyn as a weakening hurricane. Manhattan Island saw gale force winds to 56 mph.
October 10, 1894 10 People were killed and 15 injured at 74 Monroe Street in Manhattan when winds blew a building under construction onto a tenement crushing it. Extensive damage in the NYC and Long Island to telegraph lines, trees and boats docked on shore. Storm formed over Gulf of Mexico as a Category 3 weakened over land in the Southeast and re strengthened to a Category 1 over the Chesapeake Bay before striking Long Island.[13][14]

September 17, 1903 — The 1903 Vagabond Hurricane produces wind gusts in excess of 65 mph (105 km/h) and 3 inches (75 mm) of rain in Central Park.[15]
August 15, 1904 — A Category 2 hurricane skirts the East Coast of the United States producing gale-force winds and heavy rain in Eastern New York and Long Island.[16]
August 2, 1908 — A hurricane develops near North Carolina and moves northward along the coast, brushing Long Island.[17]
July 21, 1916 — Strong winds are reported on Long Island as a category 3 hurricane passes to the east.[3]
August 25, 1933 — The 1933 Chesapeake Potomac Hurricane produces up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain in Southeast New York State; other damage is unknown.[18]
September 8, 1934 — A strong tropical storm makes landfall on Long Island.[19]
September 20, 1936 — Strong waves and storm surge associated with a powerful hurricane floods much of Long Beach Island and causes severe beach erosion along the coast.[20]
September 21, 1938 — The New England Hurricane of 1938 (Also Called "The Long Island Express") makes landfall on Suffolk County (Long Island) as a category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale.[21] Wind gusts of 125 mph (200 km/h) and storm surge of 18 feet (5 m) washes across part of the island.[22] In New York 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries were attributed to the storm.[23] In addition, 2,600 boats and 8,900 houses are destroyed.[24] Throughout New England the hurricane killed over 682 people,[25] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at $4.7 billion (2005 US dollars).[26]
September 14, 1944 — The 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane makes landfall on Long Island as a category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale at a high forward speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). Wind gusts of well over 100 mph (160 km/h) breaks previous wind records in New York City, while a minimum pressure reading of 28.47 inches is recorded on Long Island. 117 homes are completely destroyed, while 2,427 are severely damaged and almost 1000 businesses are destroyed or damaged. In all, six people are killed, and one person is injured.[27]
September 18, 1945 — A weak tropical depression crosses into Southeastern New York.[11]
August 29, 1949 — A tropical storm tracks into Central New York causing no known damage.[11]

1954 — Hurricane Hazel - wind gust of 113 mph at Battery Park, highest ever recorded in New York City.
August 31, 1954 — Hurricane Carol makes landfall on Long Island and produces wind gusts of 120 miles per hour (190 km/h) on Montauk Point.[3] On eastern Long Island near where Carol made landfall, a pressure of 960 mbar is recorded.[28] Winds on the island gust to 120 mph (195 km/h). The hurricane's storm surge covers the Montauk Highway in Montauk, effectively isolating eastern Long Island for a period of time. Due to the compact nature of the storm, most of Long Island is largely unaffected by the hurricane.[28] Specific damage totals for New York are unknown, although the storm in its entirety causes $460 million (1954 USD) in damage.[28]
September 10, 1954 — Hurricane Edna tracks to the east of Long Island producing 9 inches (230 mm) of rain.[3] Prior to the storm, New York City orders an emergency standby for the majority of its hospitals, and subways.[29]
August 13, 1955 — Hurricane Connie produces 13.24 inches (370 mm) of rain in Southeast New York, although damage is unknown.[30]
September 28, 1956 — Hurricane Flossy tracks to the south of Long Island, brushing it with light rainfall.[31]
October 1, 1959 — The remnants of Hurricane Gracie track into Central New York and drops up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain.[32]
September 11, 1960 — Hurricane Donna makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 2 hurricane. Sustained winds of 100 mph (160 km/h) on eastern Long Island and 70 mph (110 km/h) winds on western Long Island are reported, and tides are 6 feet (2 m) above normal along most of the coast. Strong waves also cause beach erosion and several homes along the shore to be destroyed. Due to well-executed warnings, damages are extremely low, and it is reported that no deaths result from the storm.[33]
September 21, 1961 — Hurricane Esther causes $3 million (1961 USD, $20 million 2007 USD) in damage in Suffolk County as it tracks to the east of Long Island. Coastal areas of Long Island were flooded, as well as storm surge and wind gusts of 108 mph (173 km/h), which causes 260,000 homes to be left without power.[34]
October 8, 1962 — Hurricane Daisy tracks east of New England, producing light rainfall in extreme eastern portions of Upstate New York.[35]
September 23, 1964 — Beach erosion and moderate wind gusts are reported on Long Island as Hurricane Gladys tracks a couple hundred miles south of New York.[36]
October 19, 1964 — Light rainfall is reported as Hurricane Isbell tracks off the coast.[37]
September 10, 1969 — Rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm) is reported on Long Island and in portions of Southeastern New York associated with Hurricane Gerda.[38]
August 28, 1971 — Tropical Storm Doria produces up to 8 inches (200 mm) of rain in New York City and Upstate New York causing moderate to severe flooding and floods subways in New York City.[39][40]
June 22, 1972 — Hurricane Agnes makes landfall near New York City and produces up to 12 inches (300 mm) of rain in Southeastern New York State and much of Western New York, with locally higher amounts. Storm tides of 3.1 feet (1 m) and wind gusts of 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) occur in New York City, and severe river flooding causes six deaths.[41]
September 4, 1972 — Tropical Storm Carrie produces light rainfall on the eastern end of Long Island.[42]

August 11, 1976 — Hurricane Belle makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, producing up to 6 inches (150 mm) of rain.[43] 30,000 people are evacuated in New York in anticipation of Belle. Wind gusts of up to 70 mph and tides of 7.2 feet (2.3 m) above normal are reported in New York City and Long Island. Moderate river flooding occurs, as well as minor crop damage. In all, one person is killed by a falling tree, and damage is reported at $257 million (1976 USD, $980 million 2007 USD).[44]
September 1, 1978 — The remnants of Tropical Storm Debra produces light rainfall along the southern edge of New York State.[45]
September 7, 1979 — The remnants of Hurricane David produce light to moderate rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm) in much of New York State.[46]
September 2, 1983 — Tropical Storm Dean produces light rain near New York City[47] and causes minor beach erosion.[48]
Late October, 1984 — The remnants of a tropical depression track just north of New York City, producing extremely light showers.[49]
July 1985 — The remnants of Hurricane Bob produce light rainfall in Southeastern New York.[50]
September 25, 1985 — The remnants of Tropical Storm Henri produce light rain in isolated areas.[51]


Hurricane Gloria to the south of New York (1985)
September 27, 1985 — Hurricane Gloria makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 2 hurricane. Wind gusts of up to 100 mph (135 km/h) and 3.4 inches (86 mm) of rain [52] contribute to $300 million (1985 USD, $591 million 2007 USD) in damage, and one fatality.[53] In addition, 48 homes on Long Island were destroyed, and hundreds more were damaged.[53]
September 10, 1987 — Tropical Depression Eleven produces rainfall up to 3 inches (75 mm) in much of New York State.[54]
August 30, 1988 — Tropical Storm Chris produces moderate rainfall in Upstate New York.[55]
September 24, 1989 — The remnants of Hurricane Hugo produce light rain and gusty winds in Central and Eastern New York.[56]
August 28, 1991 — Hurricane Bob comes within a short distance of making landfall on the eastern tip of Long Island as a category 2 hurricane. Heavy rainfall up to 7 inches (175 mm) and high wind gusts causes two deaths and $75 million (1991 USD, $117 million 2007 USD), as well as severe beach erosion which came as a result of storm surge up to 6 feet (2 m) above average.[57]
October 30, 1991 — The 1991 Perfect Storm kills one man when he is swept off a bridge, and causes moderate to severe beach erosion.[58]
August 28, 1992 — The remnants of Hurricane Andrew produce light rainfall in the western portions of the state.[59]


Hurricane Floyd produced heavy rain in New York (1999).
September 27, 1992 — Tropical Storm Danielle produces light rain in Western New York.[60]
July 22, 1994 — Tropical Depression Two produces light rain in isolated areas of the state and generates thunderstorms which down several trees.[61]
August 18, 1994 — Tropical Storm Beryl's remnants produce up to 3 inches (75 mm) of rain in Central New York[62] causing moderate flooding which causes two fatalities and $1.5 million (1994 USD, $21 million 2007 USD) in damage, and 14 homes are damaged or destroyed. In addition, State Route 7 was closed for several hours due to flooding.[63]
July 13, 1996 — Hurricane Bertha makes landfall on Long Island as a tropical storm, producing heavy rainfall which caused moderate flooding in the lower Hudson Valley in addition to tropical storm-force winds.[64]
July 24, 1997 — Hurricane Danny causes light rainfall over New York City and Long Island.[65]
September 8, 1999 — The remnants of Hurricane Dennis produce bands of heavy rain which caused some flooding, especially in Rockland County where three feet of flood water accumulated in some locations.[66]
September 16, 1999 — Hurricane Floyd produces rainfall up to 13 inches (325 mm) and wind gusts of up to 60 mph (95 km/h) affect Southeastern New York. Severe flooding results from the storm, killing two people and causing an early estimate of $14.6 million (1997 USD, $18 million 2007 USD), although it is reported that damage could total to far more than that. One of the deaths occurred when a person was swept into a flooded river.[67][68]

[jacko]

In coal country?

Celanese Corp. will convert the boilers that power its Giles County factory from coal to natural gas, a press release said this morning.

The project is expected to cost $150 million and create 22 permanent jobs at the plant and 200 temporary construction jobs, according to a statement by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/316044