Interview with Delegate Jim ShulerThis is a featured page



In an effort to gain incite on Virginias state level of governance, professional opinions were sought on the proposed legislation drafted by Citizens for Beneficial Change. Several of Virginia’s legislator’s were contacted, including Delegate Jim Shuler, Delegate Anne Crockett-Stark, Senator John Edwards, and Senator Frank Wagner. Unfortunately, due to time restrictions faced by both the members of Citizens for Beneficial Change and these distinguished representatives, only the incite of Delegate Jim Shuler was able to be obtained by the time of this publication.

Delegate Jim Shuler is the democratic representative of the Twelfth District of Virginia, representing the Counties of Alleghany, Bath, Craig, Giles (part), and Montgomery (part), as well as the City of Covington. Delegate Shuler first took office in January of 1994 and servers in the committees of Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources committee, Education, and the Militia, Police and Public Safety. When asked about SB717, Delegate Shuler was very familiar with the document, especially as it pertained to the Cumberland Park Project and the projects effect on his constituents in Giles County.

According to Delegate Shuler, the Cumberland Park Project located in Giles County, Virginia, has closely followed every regulation issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all other legal requirements found within the state of Virginia. Delegate Shuler stated that because of this, at the time when SB717 was proposed, nothing could be done legislatively to reverse the project. He seemed both well informed and very much aware of the potential negative environmental consequences that could result from such a project, but brought attention to the fact that numerous experts were consulted and their conclusions were such that they allowed for the Cumberland Park Project to proceed. Delegate Shuler stated further that it is his understanding that extensive environmental monitoring is being conducted at the Cumberland Park site and that he was fairly certain of a heavy clay liner was being utilized to help mitigate any leaching that might occur from the fly ash itself.

For Delegate Shuler, a major issue found within the current regulations concerns the current lack of accommodation to public input. According to Shuler, in both the Code of Virginia and the regulations set forth by the DEQ, there is no requirement that mandates a public hearing to be conducted before such a project, such as the one at Cumberland Park, can be undertaken. For Delegate Shuler, this was one of the main areas of contention that his office encountered once the populace started to find out the details of the Cumberland Park Project. He stated that this initial lack of communication helped to fuel the controversy surrounding the project because it allowed for the formulation of rumors and intensified the feeling among the populace that AEP was trying to pull something on them. “On any issue there is always two sides to the story, the trick is to try and separate fact from fiction”, stated Shuler.

When an inquiry was made as to what sorts of objections he encountered at the state level of governance to SB717, Delegate Shuler stated that he could not answer that question with any certainty because he was not actually part of the committee which examined the bill. However, based off his experiences in the past, he made the educated guess that anyone who has any sort of business related to the production of, or use of, fly ash from coal fired power plants would be sure to make their voice is heard. This too would be the case for the legislation purposed by Citizens for Beneficial Change. Delegate Shuler stressed that this voice from the coal industry was by no means unanimous across the board, stating that each player has their own personal ties to the issue. Delegate Shuler then relayed the story of how his office has been visited by several representatives from different areas of coal industry, all inquiring about various aspects of SB717 and the events transpiring within Giles County. Interestingly however AEP was not one of the visitors to his office.


No user avatar
rjohns04 		Latest page update: made by rjohns04 , Apr 7 2008, 11:04 PM EDT (about this update About This Update rjohns04 Edited by rjohns04


view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.