Blueprint America » Power & Energy

Cleaning Coal: Video: Full Report

tom mcnamara — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:04:30 +0000

Blueprint America — with NOW on PBS — looks at if America’s most affordable and abundant energy resource — coal — can be produced without an adverse effect to the environment.

With carbon emissions caps on the Obama Administration’s agenda, coal is at the center of the energy debate. NOW’s Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa goes to Wyoming to report on the state’s coal industry, and its assertion that it can produce “clean coal” — coal that can be burned without releasing carbon into the atmosphere. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/04/coal_power_plant_datteln_2_crop1200100.jpg

Cleaning Coal: Data: Net Generation from Coal by State by Sector

tom mcnamara — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:44:26 +0000

A report from the Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy):

Report Released: March 24, 2009
Next Release Date: Mid-April 2009



Census Division and State	Total (All Sectors)			Electric Power Sector				Commercial Sector		Industrial Sector
	Total (All Sectors)			Electric Utilities		Independent Power Producers		Commercial Sector		Industrial Sector
	Dec-08	Dec-07	Percent Change	Dec-08	Dec-07	Dec-08	Dec-07	Dec-08	Dec-07	Dec-08	Dec-07
New England	1,714	1,609	6.5	362	380	1,339	1,203	–	–	14	26
Connecticut	360	294	22.7	–	–	360	294	–	–	–	–
Maine	15	38	-60.1	–	–	6	16	–	–	10	22
Massachusetts	977	896	8.9	–	–	972	893	–	–	NM	3
New Hampshire	362	380	-4.9	362	380	–	–	–	–	–	–
Rhode Island	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Vermont	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Middle Atlantic	12,234	13,187	-7.2	NM	134	12,057	12,927	1	4	139	121
New Jersey	745	993	-25	NM	8	728	985	–	–	–	–
New York	1,380	1,840	-25	NM	127	1,318	1,671	*	4	40	38
Pennsylvania	10,110	10,354	-2.4	–	–	10,011	10,271	*	*	99	83
East North Central	40,632	39,219	3.6	28,786	28,286	11,432	10,475	52	47	362	413
Illinois	8,365	8,285	1	273	729	7,901	7,333	6	8	185	215
Indiana	11,247	10,453	7.6	10,572	9,756	654	684	16	9	NM	4
Michigan	6,095	5,837	4.4	5,973	5,710	NM	47	26	24	50	56
Ohio	10,989	11,115	-1.1	8,143	8,676	2,813	2,407	–	–	33	33
Wisconsin	3,937	3,528	11.6	3,824	3,415	NM	3	NM	5	90	105
West North Central	20,516	20,885	-1.8	20,291	20,616	5	3	26	31	193	235
Iowa	3,621	3,358	7.8	3,518	3,224	–	–	NM	18	87	116
Kansas	2,977	3,251	-8.4	2,977	3,251	–	–	–	–	–	–
Minnesota	2,821	2,974	-5.1	2,735	2,880	5	3	–	–	81	90
Missouri	6,129	6,551	-6.4	6,107	6,524	–	–	10	13	NM	14
Nebraska	1,894	1,991	-4.9	1,892	1,989	–	–	–	–	NM	2
North Dakota	2,728	2,702	1	2,719	2,690	–	–	–	–	NM	12
South Dakota	345	58	492	345	58	–	–	–	–	–	–
South Atlantic	33,298	37,401	-11	26,910	31,004	6,101	6,108	9	11	277	277
Delaware	506	536	-5.5	–	–	498	527	–	–	NM	9
District of Columbia	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Florida	4,870	5,975	-18.5	4,402	5,460	445	490	–	–	NM	26
Georgia	6,533	7,329	-10.9	6,469	7,265	–	–	–	–	64	65
Maryland	2,579	2,638	-2.2	–	–	2,566	2,622	–	–	13	16
North Carolina	5,714	6,375	-10.4	5,376	6,079	292	250	9	11	36	35
South Carolina	3,085	3,799	-18.8	3,058	3,777	–	–	–	–	26	23
Virginia	2,847	2,957	-3.7	2,388	2,464	378	429	–	–	82	63
West Virginia	7,165	7,792	-8.1	5,217	5,960	1,921	1,790	–	–	26	42
East South Central	19,189	20,221	-5.1	18,113	19,039	957	1,043	NM	2	116	137
Alabama	5,835	6,244	-6.6	5,803	6,206	10	16	–	–	22	23
Kentucky	8,074	7,648	5.6	7,344	6,907	730	742	–	–	–	–
Mississippi	1,291	1,370	-5.8	1,074	1,085	217	285	–	–	–	–
Tennessee	3,989	4,959	-19.5	3,892	4,842	–	–	NM	2	94	114
West South Central	20,202	21,160	-4.5	11,823	12,101	8,312	9,008	–	–	66	52
Arkansas	2,477	2,578	-3.9	2,466	2,568	–	–	–	–	11	10
Louisiana	2,220	2,224	-0.2	1,048	1,089	1,170	1,131	–	–	NM	4
Oklahoma	3,337	3,054	9.3	3,047	2,789	237	227	–	–	53	38
Texas	12,167	13,304	-8.5	5,261	5,655	6,906	7,649	–	–	–	–
Mountain	19,055	18,386	3.6	17,053	16,640	1,943	1,700	–	–	59	46
Arizona	3,478	3,640	-4.5	3,443	3,620	–	–	–	–	35	20
Colorado	3,143	3,183	-1.3	3,124	3,168	NM	15	–	–	–	–
Idaho	NM	8	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	NM	8
Montana	1,652	1,618	2.1	NM	32	1,623	1,586	–	–	–	–
Nevada	854	641	33.2	699	641	155	–	–	–	–	–
New Mexico	2,618	2,108	24.2	2,618	2,108	–	–	–	–	–	–
Utah	3,254	3,280	-0.8	3,224	3,241	NM	39	–	–	–	–
Wyoming	4,050	3,907	3.7	3,917	3,830	NM	59	–	–	NM	18
Pacific Contiguous	1,600	1,555	2.9	417	432	1,139	1,078	–	–	44	45
California	210	200	5.2	–	–	170	161	–	–	40	39
Oregon	417	432	-3.3	417	432	–	–	–	–	–	–
Washington	972	923	5.3	–	–	968	918	–	–	4	5
Pacific Noncontiguous	191	206	-7.6	19	19	151	165	21	23	–	–
Alaska	56	61	-7.7	19	19	NM	19	21	23	–	–
Hawaii	135	146	-7.6	–	–	135	146	–	–	–	–
U.S. Total	168,632	173,830	-3	123,813	128,652	43,436	43,710	112	119	1,270	1,350
Unit = (Thousand Megawatthours) * = Value is less than half of the smallest unit of measure (e.g., for values with no decimals, the smallest unit is “1″ then values under 0.5 are shown as “”.) NM = Not meaningful due to large relative standard error or excessive percentage change. Notes:* See Glossary for definitions. Values for 2007 are final. Values for 2008 are preliminary. – See Technical Notes for a discussion of the sample design for the Form EIA-923, Form EIA-906 and Form EIA-920. Negative generation denotes that electric power consumed for plant use exceeds gross generation. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Percent difference is calculated before rounding. Sources: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report;” and Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-920 “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;” Beginning with 2008 data, the Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report,” replaced the following: Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report;” Form EIA-920, “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;” Form EIA-423, “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report;” and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Form 423, “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants.”

Tables on U.S. Electric Power Generation:	Formats
Table 1.2. Useful Thermal Output by Energy Source by Combined Heat and Power Producers	html	pdf	xls
Table ES. Summary Statistics for the United States	html	pdf	xls
Table 2.6. Capacity Additions and Retirements by Energy Source	html	pdf	xls
Net Generation by
Table 1.1. Energy Source: Total (All Sectors)	html		xls
Table 1.1.A. Other Renewables: Total – All Sectors	html		xls
Table 1.2 Energy Source: Electric Utilities	html		xls
Table 1.3 Energy Source: Independent Power Producers	html		xls
Table 1.4 Energy Source: Commercial Combined Heat and Power Sector	html		xls
Table 1.5 Energy Source: Industrial Combined Heat and Power Sector	html		xls
Table 1.6.A. State by Sector	html		xls
Table 1.6.B. State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
Net Generation from
1.7.A. Coal by State by Sector	html		xls
1.7.B. Coal by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.8.A. Petroleum Liquids by State by Sector	html		xls
1.8.B. Petroleum Liquids by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.9.A. Petroleum Coke by State by Sector	html		xls
1.9.B. Petroleum Coke by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.10.A. Natural Gas by State by Sector	html		xls
1.10.B. Natural Gas by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.11.A. Other Gases by State by Sector	html		xls
1.11.B. Other Gases by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.12.A. Nuclear Energy by State by Sector	html		xls
1.12.B. Nuclear Energy by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.13.A. Hydroelectric (Conventional) Power by State by Sector	html		xls
1.13.B. Hydroelectric (Conventional) Power by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.14.A. Other Renewables by State by Sector	html		xls
1.14.B. Other Renewables by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.15.A. Hydroelectric (Pumped Storage) Power by State by Sector	html		xls
1.15.B. Hydroelectric (Pumped Storage) Power by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
1.16.A. Other Energy Sources by State by Sector	html		xls
1.16.B. Other Energy Sources by State by Sector, Year-to-Date	html		xls
Form EIA-906 and EIA-920 Databases			DBF
Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906)			xls

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/04/coal_mine_wyoming200100.jpg A report from the Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy).

Cleaning Coal: Overview

tom mcnamara — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:58:09 +0000

Blueprint America — with NOW on PBS — looks at if America’s most affordable and abundant energy resource — coal — can be produced without an adverse effect to the environment.

Still, the country is dependent on coal – it supplies half of America’s electricity. At the same time, there is a price — coal may be cheap, but the environmental cost is high.

President Obama has been outspoken in his support for “clean coal” technology, but others argue the concept is simply a public relations campaign instead of an energy solution.

As part of the report, Hinojosa talks with Dave Freudenthal, the Governor of Wyoming, and Jeff Goodell, the author of “Big Coal,” who says that carbon dioxide emissions generated from coal contribute to global warming.

Blueprint America — with NOW on PBS — looks at if America’s most affordable and abundant energy resource — coal — can be produced without an adverse effect to the environment. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/04/coal_power_plant_datteln_2_crop1200100.jpg

National Governors Association on Infrastructure: Overview: The Nation’s Infrastructure Policy

wayne taylor — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:21:07 +0000

The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, in partnership with Blueprint America and MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, hosts a conversation at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, moderated by Robert MacNeil, founder and former co-anchor of the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, focused on balancing a federal infrastructure policy with energy, environmental, and economic priorities.

Gov. Ed Rendell, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican of California, Join Jay Etta Hecker, former GAO Director of Physical Infrastructure; and Douglas Foy, former Secretary of Commonwealth Development for Massachusetts, and former Executive Director of the Conservation Law Foundation, to discuss the resolution: “The federal government must create a comprehensive infrastructure policy in concert with national energy, environmental, and economic priorities.”

/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2008/09/ba_thumb_description.jpg The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, in partnership with Blueprint America and MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, hosts a conversation at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting in Washington, DC with Gov. Ed Rendell and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Power Struggle: Overview

tom mcnamara — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:44:09 +0000

As America looks to dramatically increase its use of renewable energy, an inconvenient reality stands in the way: The need to upgrade the country’s antiquated electricity grid. Part of that overhaul involves the construction of costly long-distance transmission lines to carry clean energy from remote sites to population centers.

Blueprint America — with NOW on PBS — reports from California, which has the most ambitious clean energy plan in the nation. But, the state’s efforts face stiff opposition from property owners and conservationists who prefer renewable energy from local sources, such as photovoltaic rooftop solar panels.

Complicating the matter are claims that the transmission lines are not actually carrying renewable energy at all, but represent a thinly-disguised strategy to stick to old energy practices.

The green energy dream: Why it may not happen.

Complicating the matter are claims that the transmission lines are not actually carrying renewable energy at all, but represent a thinly-disguised strategy to stick to old energy practices.

The green energy dream: Why it may not happen. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/01/503_indepth200×100.jpg

In the Hills: Radio: Full Report

tom mcnamara — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:08:02 +0000

Rick Karr, Blueprint America correspondent

[Transcript]

Over the past few years, prospectors have been combing the hills of Pennsylvania. They aren’t looking for gold – instead, the mineral that’s setting off the frenzy is shale. It’s known as the Marcellus Shale, it lies a mile or more below ground, and it’s full of natural gas – maybe enough to fuel the entire United States for two years.

The “gas rush” could make some Pennsylvanians rich. But it could also pollute the state’s air and water. And that’s set up a conflict between natives of the area and “weekenders” – mostly New Yorkers – who own second homes there.

Bill Bryant’s family moved to Damascus Township, Pennsylvania close to a hundred and seventy years ago – in 1841. I observe that that means he has pretty deep roots there. “Yeah, they cleared the land here,” he laughs. “They were Connecticut Yankees.”

It’s gorgeous land – pretty much the definition of “bucolic” – with lush, gentle hills and a view of the Catskill Mountains in the distance. Bryant’s a dairy farmer. But he’s also watching a gas company – slowly – move into the area.

“That whole side hill over there is signed up with Cheaspeake,” he says, gesturing to the north. “And like I say, the guy across the road is signed up with Cheaspeake. The guy across the road probably only signed for $1,400. And that guy” — he gestures back to the north — “signed for a couple thousand. But they did get up to about $2,800 here.”

That’s how much the gas companies were paying per acre just as a signing bonus. At that rate, Bryant would’ve earned $728,000 on his 260 acres. And once the wells started pumping gas from under his land, he’d earn a percentage of the revenues.

But he didn’t sign – in part because he and his family have questions about the environmental impact of drilling.

Here’s why: The fuel’s actually trapped in little pockets in the shale. Tom Murphy of the Penn State Cooperative Extension says that to get the gas OUT of those pockets, energy companies use a technique called hydraulic fracturing — forcing millions of gallons of water into bore-holes at extremely high pressure to break open the brittle shale. Then the gas companies pump sand into the holes; the grains prop open the tiny cracks in the rock. Once the water gets pumped out, the gas can flow up to the surface – and ultimately to your furnace.

The thing is, energy companies aren’t pumping just water and sand into the ground. The fluid that they use is actually a soup that contains scores of chemicals – and some of those ingredients are toxic. They can cause brain and kidney damage, even cancer. And environmentalists say, given the track record of operations like this in Texas and across the West, there’s almost no oversight when it comes to disposing of the fluid. So it might end up in the water table, or in lakes and streams, or even evaporating. And because of those risks, they want the drilling to stop.

Every weekend, Joe Levine and Jane Ciphers leave their home in Brooklyn for a barn that they converted into a weekend home not far from Bryant’s farm. It’s where the anti-drilling movement meets to talk strategy.

Levine and Ciphers helped organize a group called Damascus Citizens for Sustainability. A lot of locals think they’re nothing but NIMBYs. But Pat Carullo, another of the group’s organizers, said there’s something much bigger at stake. “This is not our back yard. This is the drinking water source for 15 million Americans.”

As he talks, he gestures out a wall of windows in Levine and Ciphgers’ weekend home with a sweeping view of the Delaware River a couple hundred feet downhill. New York City’s reservoirs are upstream, and Philadelphia and Wilmington tap the Delaware Watershed downstream.

The locals say they understand that – that, as farmers, they’re well aware of the environmental risks, and they’re trying to minimize them. They accuse the city people of being condescending, treating them like ignorant rubes. They say it’s like the two sides aren’t even speaking the same language.

Pat Carullo says he knows what language he’s speaking “I’m speaking English. I don’t exactly know what language someone might be speaking who says, ‘We understand that the gas and oil industry is operating under total Federal deregulation, we understand that there’s going to be a catastrophic result from thousands of gas wells in a watershed which is protected by a sitting act of Congress, and we’re going to proceed anyway.’ I don’t understand – that doesn’t seem to me like English.”

The locals also say that the gas companies are in Pennsylvania to stay; that drilling is inevitable. But Barbara Arrindell – another organizer of Damascus Citizens – says nothing is inevitable. “The inevitability of someone who was born into an African-American, a Negro, or whatever terminology of dark skin – in this country – it was inevitable that they were going to be a slave,” she argues. “Now, that’s not the case today.”

“But it took a war to establish that,” I say.

“Well, it might take a war to do this,” she snaps back, and her fellow environmentalists laugh. “If someone’s only looking at what’s gonna go in [their] pocket, and [they] don’t care about anything else, then that’s the language that they might have to understand – that they will be sued. That there are costs involved in this beyond what is just going to go into their pocket.”

A lot of the farmers in the area just roll their eyes when you mention the Damascus Citizens. They see the environmentalists as carpetbaggers who just don’t understand farm life. Some of the group’s members are “weekenders”; others live in the area full-time. But most of its leaders are New Yorkers – city people. They’re part of a wave of city people who’ve been moving into the area for years now. As they buy and build homes, property taxes rise. And it gets harder to run dairy farms.

Bill Bryant, the farmer whose family’s been working the land here for nearly a hundred seventy years, says he’s tried to adapt to the changes by opening an artisanal cheesemaking operation. But not without some misgivings. “I’m personally maybe a little bit anti-city-people,” he says. “but the cheese thing works better with the city people. So we’re trying to take advantage of what’s happened in the area. Because the trend in dairy farmers is just to keep getting bigger, and we’re almost the biggest in the county now and we don’t wanna get any bigger, so at that point you gotta look to do something else.”

Fort some of his neighbors, “something else” comes down to two choices: Either sign a gas lease … or sell off the land. “And those places are basically in jeopardy of being subdivided, and somebody from the city would get a hold of them,” he says. “So are we better off with those places subdivided and more city people in the area, or are we better off with the people who’ve been here a hundred years keeping those tracts in the family and getting some money from gas to pay their taxes and keep the land? I don’t know which is worse.”

Bill Bryant has time to make up his mind: Gas companies have cut back on signing new leases thanks to the economy. Meanwhile, else where in Pennsylvania drilling’s already taking place. Its opponents are lobbying lawmakers to stop it before it goes any farther.

# # #

Blueprint America — with Weekend America — in a report on modern day gas prospecting in the hills of Northeastern Pennsylvania. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/01/lsp_icy_lake200100.jpg

In the Hills: Analysis: Marcellus Shale in Northeastern Pennsylvania

tom mcnamara — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:06:15 +0000

Gas exploration has been happening in Pennsylvania since the 1800s. However, a new technology and new price incentives have made possible the exploration of the Marcellus shale. It is a geological formation – the size of Greece – stretching from New York to West Virginia and holding what could become the nation’s most prolific natural gas reservoir. In 2008, Penn State University estimated the economic value of the formation at $1 trillion and that, for every $1 billion in royalties paid to Pennsylvania residents, nearly 8,000 jobs would be created.

The pace of exploration accelerated in 2008 due to increased demand and higher gas prices. Companies rushed to add acreage, expand leaseholds and submit applications to drill the Marcellus shale. In mid-2008, in northeastern Pennsylvania, gas operators were offering landowners as much as $3,000 per acre and 15 percent royalty over the period of the lease. A landowner with a well on his property could expect to make $800,000 in royalties during the first year of production. Thousands of property owners in Pennsylvania signed leases welcoming the extra income in a region that has long suffered from economic malaise.

As Blueprint America correspondent Rick Karr uncovered, not everyone in northeastern Pennsylvania is thrilled about this new gas rush. The main areas of concern relate to the impact of exploration and drilling on the environment and on local infrastructure.

Environmentalists point to the vast amounts of water (one to five million gallons per well) required to extract gas from the Marcellus shale and to the potential contamination of groundwater and watersheds. Drilling is done horizontally and uses hydrofracking – high-pressured water laced with chemicals is pumped into the earth to break the rock and extract gas trapped 7,000 feet below ground. Frac water is then diluted before being released into waterways. Environmental groups are seeking increased oversight and regulation from state agencies.

At the local level, the gas bonanza can put serious stress on a town’s infrastructure. Increased truck traffic accelerates the wear and tear of country roads and bridges. Children of rig workers must be accommodated in local schools. Pennsylvania does not tax gas revenues. Local jurisdictions with natural gas wells face higher demands for services, but receive little new revenues to pay for those services. School districts, county and municipal governments who own land leased for natural gas are looking for ways to receive windfalls from leasing and royalties. At the state level, Governor Rendell lifted a 2003 moratorium on drilling to shore up the state’s ailing finances. Bidding for oil and gas drilling rights on state forest land atop the Marcellus shale was initiated in September 2008. The lease revenues will go to the Oil and Gas Lease Fund which finances park, conservation, recreation, dam repair and flood-control projects.

Gas exploration has been happening in Pennsylvania since the 1800s. However, a new technology and new price incentives have made possible the exploration of the Marcellus shale. It is a geological formation – the size of Greece – stretching from New York to West Virginia and holding what could become the nation’s most prolific natural gas reservoir. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/01/marcellusshale21200100.jpg

In the Hills: Overview

tom mcnamara — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000

Over the past few years, prospectors have been combing the hills of Pennsylvania. They’re not looking for gold. The mineral that’s setting off the frenzy is shale. It’s a mile or more below ground, and it’s full of natural gas — maybe enough to fuel the entire U.S. for two years.

The gas rush could make some Pennsylvanians rich. But, it could also pollute the state’s air and water as the gas-grab can put serious stress on a community’s infrastructure.

And, that’s set up a conflict between natives of the area and weekenders — mostly New Yorkers — who own second homes there. Blueprint America — with Weekend America — goes to Northeastern Pennsylvania to look into what’s pitting neighbor against neighbor in what could unsettle the area’s infrastructure.

The gas rush could make some Pennsylvanians rich. But, it could also pollute the state’s air and water as the gas-grab can put serious stress on a community’s infrastructure.

Power Struggle: Video: Full Report

tom mcnamara — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:25 +0000

Will green energy happen? Blueprint America — with NOW on PBS — looks at the reality of renewables — energy generated from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, and rain.

/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/01/503_indepth200×100.jpg Will green energy happen? Blueprint America — with NOW on PBS — looks at the reality of renewables — energy generated from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, and rain.

Beneath the North Texas Dirt: Overview

tom mcnamara — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:23:51 +0000

In fall 2006, an elderly couple in Wylie, TX, slept soundly while a killer entered their home. In the middle of the night, they were thrown violently from their beds and burned to death. The perpetrator: natural gas.

An official investigation by state regulators found that natural gas had leaked into Benny and Martha Cryer’s home when a gas line coupling came loose beneath the meter in the alley outside. On the night of October 16, the gas ignited and the ensuing explosion blew the Cryers out of bed, trapping them under burning debris.

But this story is not about one tragic incident, it’s about how Brett Shipp, a television reporter from WFAA in Dallas, found that state regulators, along with local power companies, have for decades ignored fatal design flaws in the vital infrastructure that brings natural gas into thousands of American homes.

Blueprint America — with Exposé on Bill Moyers Journal — looks into the question of when are repairs going to be made and who will make them?

/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2008/11/1200100gas.jpg Brett Shipp, a television reporter from WFAA in Dallas, found that state regulators, along with local power companies, have for decades ignored fatal design flaws in the vital infrastructure that brings natural gas into thousands of American homes.