Parts of the new 35W bridge contain as much as 25% fly ash.

Coal fly ash, a byproduct of coal-fired power generation, is gaining a reputation as a green building material when used to make concrete, but due to toxins it contains, its use in agricultural applications may be cause for concern.

A large amount of fly ash that has found a home near downtown Minneapolis has been receiving lots of attention lately: The superstructure of the new 35W bridge is composed of 25 percent fly ash, and the bridge’s piers, footings and shafts all contain 16 to 18 percent fly ash. The ash is used as a substitute for Portland cement, a key component of concrete.

Portland cement is notorious for the large amounts of energy consumed and CO2 released during its production. Fly ash in concrete has recently be gaining a reputation as an alternative.

“If you use a 25 percent fly ash content instead of the standard 9 percent, you get an 11 percent reduction in CO2 emissions,” explains Daniel Handeen, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota Center for Sustainable Building Research. “A fly ash content of 35 percent reduces CO2 potential 21 percent.”

But fly ash contains toxins like arsenic, lead and mercury, as well as dioxins. Fly ash has also been shown to have elevated levels of Radium-226. According to the Center for Sustainable Building Research’s building material database, the debate among building health experts is still open:

Some experts maintain the metals are effectively locked into the [cement] matrix, preventing their release. Furthermore, by using fly ash in concrete rather than landfilling it, the potential for the metals to leach into the environment is reduced. Concern about higher incidence of Radium-226 in fly ash than in cement: An EPA study suggests that the slight increased risk imposed by the greater exposure was offset by the reduced exposure to radon gas, which is less likely to escape fly ash’s glass sphere structure and the less permeable nature of high volume fly ash concrete.

“There are tradeoffs to anything; there’s no perfect material,” Hendeen points out. “Fly ash, in a way, is still solving a symptom. In one sense, yes, you’re using up this waste material. In another way it’s justifying the burning of coal as a fuel source. Until we find better ways to produce energy, it is a good use of the byproducts.”

Coal plants are eager to get rid of the highly toxic ash. In Minnesota, which ranks 26th in the country for coal waste with 1,544,110 tons of waste reported, the ash is stored in massive containment ponds. In other states the ash is allowed to be piled up in giants mounds, as was the case in therecent environmental disaster that sent nearly one billion gallons of highly toxic coal ash sludge spilling over a six-mile area near a Tennessee power plant.

Fly ash in Agriculture

Less scrutiny has been given to agricultural applications of coal fly ash. In many parts of the country, food crops are allowed to be grown in soil amended with fly ash. The ash stabilizes the soil and has shown to increase yields. But a study conducted at Indiana State University concluded that plants grown in fly ash concentrates of 5 to 20 percent of soil absorb toxic metals.

According to Dr. Sandra Brake, an Associate Professor of Geology and one of the authors of the study, “if the fly ash is amended in soils, some of the trace metals may be in a bio-available form that can be taken up by some plants.”

While the State of Minnesota does not allow fly ash to be used in crop production, the Minnesota Pollution Control Authority (MPCA) has approved the use of fly ash from Otter Tail Power Company’s Hoot Lake facility in Fergus Falls, Minn., to be used as a soil stabilizer in livestock pens, as an aggregate for private roads and as a base pad in feed storage. Up to two inches of ash can be spread over an area to treat the top six inches of soil.

“Depending on the type of fly ash, it can contain high levels of trace metals, some of which are toxic to animals,” said Dr. Brake. “It depends on how the fly ash is used and whether the animals would be ingesting the material.”

Geoffrey Strack, a senior engineer at the MPCA, said the agency requires the fly ash be tested before being dispersed for alternate uses.

“We do have them test the material for the leachability of the elements from the fly ash,” said Strack. “We also limit liquids access to the aggregate, such as having a roof over a feed pad.”

Research into agricultural uses for fly ash began with a study conducted at North Dakota State University (NDSU) during the late 1990s using coal fly ash from the Hoot Lake facility.

“We started the experiment in bison feedlots and it worked so well we applied to the MPCA,” said Jeff Olson, Hoot Lake plant manager.

The MPCA then asked NDSU researchers to look into the environmental impacts of fly ash application. The study concluded that the ash, “if used properly, is not a hazard to the environment when used for soil stabilization at the addition concentrations used in the sites for this project.”

But the MPCA’s subsequent approval seems to contradict the way fly ash is handled at its source. While proper application of fly ash for agricultural purposes is the sole responsibility of the property owner, Minnesota coal plants are governed by some of the strictest regulations in the nation. Coal plants must store fly ash in enormous lined containment pools with earthen dams that are required to be inspected every eight years.

These stringent regulations were put in place after the state was confronted with its own coal ash disaster. On July 28, 1993, a 770,000 cubic yard ash heap at an LTV Steel plant near Lake Superior collapsed after heavy rains, sending the material down a hillside and covering Highway 61 before reaching the lake’s waters.

Olson says the fly ash from Hoot Lake is routinely tested internally by Otter Tail Power, and so far actual use of fly ash has been limited due in large part to landowners’ lack of understanding about the product.

“The majority of the problem is the farmers haven’t found a way to transport it.”

Fly ash must be transported in a vehicle that is both lined and covered with a layer of sand to prevent it from being inadvertently dispersed into the environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency has never regulated the use of fly ash, leaving that to the states, but that policy seems likely to change. On March 4, Senate Resolution 64 was introduced calling on the agency to use its authority under existing law to inspect coal waste facilities and establish a rule making policy following federal guidelines. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has already begun the process.

Van Jones

Van Jones, who has made a name for himself as a leading advocate for a green economy as a solution to both environmental and social justice issues, was named on Tuesday as President Obama’s choice to become Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Jones is the founder of Green For All and author of the best-selling The Green Collar Economy. He was profiled by Thomas Friedman for Hot, Flat, & Crowded, and partnered with Al Gore in 2008 on a project called “Green For All Academy,” which trains people to “effectively advocate for a green economy.”

“My job will be to help shape the administration’s energy and climate policy, so the climate solutions produce jobs and justice for all Americans,” Jones wrote while dispelling rumors he would be a “Green Jobs Czar” handing out stimulus cash.

Jones appeared at Minnesota’s state capitol on March 5 for Youth Lobby Day, where he spoke to over 200 “young scholars” advocating for the Minnesota Clean Cars Bill. (Video by Will Steger Foundation – Jones appears at 1:50)

Wind farm (Wikicommons)

Minnesota is already big into wind, and it could be much bigger. The state currently has a wind capacity of 1752 megawatts (MW), fourth highest in the nation, but has an estimated potential power output of 75,000 MW according to the American Wind Energy Association.

In 2007, Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed into law a requirement that 25 percent of the states energy come from renewable sources by 2025. Many landowners in South-Western Minnesota began fearing the arrival of prospectors driving up the price of land in advance of a “wind boom.” Later that year an amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 500.30 was passed to address this concern by requiring the termination of a wind easement, “if a wind energy project on the property to which the easement or lease applies does not begin commercial operation within the seven-year period.”

Wind developers complained the seven-year limit posed an impediment to legitimate development and in the 2008 session the legislature responded by repealing the changes effective 2010 and ordering the Office of Energy Security (OES) to convene a work group of interested parties and investigate the factual evidence for land prospecting.

The OES report (pdf) was recently released and found no factual evidence that there has ever been an instance of land prospecting for wind easements, but there’s no real reason why there shouldn’t be land prospectors. The report finds that “given the similarities between wind lease rights and oil and gas lease rights, and the well-documented history of speculation in the latter, a reasonable person might well be concerned that such speculation could also arise in wind leases.”

The proper Minnesotan thing to do now would be to convene a work group to find out why it is the prospectors don’t like us.

(WDCpix)

Since he’s lost his bid to become the 44th president of the United State of America, Sen. John McCain has taken to twittering top-ten lists about his favorite subject, disgusting Washington, D.C., brand pork, and he’s not letting the facts get in the way.

“Tmr I am gonna tweet the TOP TEN PORKIEST PROJECTS in theOmnibus Spending bill the Congress is about to pass,” McCain tweeted on Feb., 26.

The list was such a smashing success, with the porkiest project being “$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa,” that McCain has composed seven such lists since then, with the most recent including the first Minnesota earmark to be honored.

“#10. $142,500 for the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota – brought to you by former Cong. James Ramstad.”

Unfortunately, according to the Office of Management and Budget nothing in that tweet is true.

The 2008 omnibus bill allocates $383,000 to “Lutheran Social Services of Duluth, MN for services to runaway, homeless, and other at-risk youth and their families,” sponsored by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.).

Former Rep. Ramstad did sponsor $192,000 for Jewish Family and Children’s Service of Minneapolis, for a naturally occurring retirement community demonstration project, but that earmark isn’t on McCain’s list.

Fittingly, McCain’s seven top-ten lists apparently only consist of 67 items.

Despite the pleas of citizens and activists in the hearing room, environmental issues were not deliberated by the PUC.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) unanimously approved the Certificate of Need for a transmission line project necessary for the construction of the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant in Milbank, S.D.

Despite a room full of citizens, many holding signs and some dressed in animal costumes, opposed to the plant’s construction because of environmental concerns, the PUC did not deliberate the coal-fired facility itself or the environmental impacts that it may have, focusing instead on the cost of the project and its implications for utility rate payers.

The five-member PUC was to issue a final ruling last June, but newly appointed Commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien requested further review of the project, and an inquiry was approved by a vote of 3-2. Boston Pacific was hired as an independent consultant to assess carbon dioxide emission costs, construction costs and fuel prices for Big Stone II.

Dr. Steve Rakow, a rates analyst from the State Office of Energy Security testifying on the commission’s alternative option decisions, stated that because the Boston Pacific report did not concern itself with issues like mercury emissions or water usage that his findings did not take such things into consideration.

“Boston Pacific wasn’t paid to consider more than the three cost concerns,” responded Commissioner Thomas Pugh. The commission proceeded with a primary concern of ensuring ratepayers were not left to carry the burden of the $1.3 billion facility. To that end, the commission attached conditional monetary caps to the construction of the project and future carbon dioxide tax expenses. Since no carbon tax has been established by Congress, there is an open debate as to what those costs will be. Environmental groups expect that global warming concerns will result in a relatively high carbon tax, meaning Big Stone II would be less viable economically. Industry estimates the future carbon tax will be low and the plant will be more profitable.

“We appreciate the the PUC saw the need for these transmission lines and granted the requested permits,” said Mark Rolfes, Big Stone II project manager. “We’ll need to wait until the written conditions are available from the PUC to determine how they affect the project.”

Artist's rendering of the plant with Big Stone Lake, headwaters of the Minnesota River and natural border between South Dakota and Minnesota in the background. Via BigStoneII.com

The PUC also stuck to its limited purview over the project, considering only the merits of the Minnesota portion of the transmission project and not the Big Stone II plant itself. Despite the fact that Big Stone II will be constructed a short distance from the Minnesota-South Dakota border on the headwaters of the Minnesota River and that residents of Minnesota will be the recipient of 45 percent of the electricity generated by the facility, only 12 percent of the entire project fell under the jurisdiction of the PUC.

“This is a tremendous disappointment from the PUC, a milquetoast decision that means that if Big Stone II gets built, shareholders and ratepayers will have to bear the extraordinary costs of coal and carbon that Otter Tail Power did not account for, not to mention the pollution,” said Darrell Gerber with Clean Water Action. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

The opposition groups will likely exercise one of their few remaining options and bring the PUC’s decision before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

“This is certainly not the end of the road,” remarked Cesia Kearns, organizer with the Sierra Club.

“We know that coal is a risky financial gamble — coal plants are dropping like flies around the country, and with a carbon constrained future, it’s likely Big Stone II will join the ever-growing list of abandoned projects.”

The Certificate of Need allows the five utilities involved in the Big Stone II project to construct and upgrade 112 miles of transmission lines in western Minnesota. The plant itself is not expected to be completed and online until 2015.

Big Stone II will be constructed next to the existing Big Stone I plant on the South Dakota side of the border with Minnesota.

A four-year battle over a proposed coal plant in South Dakota could come to a close during a Minnesota Public Utility Commission (PUC) hearing in St. Paul on Thursday. The commission will decide whether to issue a certificate of need for transmission line upgrades in Minnesota required to construct the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant.

If the certificate is denied, the project will likely be scrapped entirely. If the certificate is approved, environmental groups will have little recourse to prevent the plant’s construction.

Big Stone II is to be a 580-megawatt facility constructed next to the existing, 450-megawatt Big Stone I plant in South Dakota near the headwaters of the Minnesota River and the border with Minnesota. While the PUC has authority only over the transmission lines and not the actual proposed power plant, 45 percent of the plant’s generated electricity will be delivered to Minnesota, giving the Minnesota panel decisive power.

The five-member PUC was to issue a final ruling last June, but newly appointed Commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien requested further review of the project, and an inquiry was approved by a vote of 3-2. Boston Pacific was hired as an independent consultant to assess carbon dioxide emission costs, construction costs and fuel prices for Big Stone II.

The Boston Pacific report, issued in October, concluded that “the range of emissions, construction, and fuel price inputs used in the Applicants’ analyses were not appropriate; put another way, they were out of line with current ‘best practices’ resource selection methodologies.”

The report took particular exception to the applicants’ emission costs.

“We found the Applicants’ use of a $0 to $9 per ton CO2 tax, without escalation over time, to be far lower than the ranges justified for resource decisions today,” the report said.

Artist's rendering of the plant, via BigStoneII.com

Opponents of the plant accused the five utilities involved in Big Stone II of underestimating the cost of the plant and overestimating the cost of alternatives.

Dan Sharp, communications manager for the Big Stone II project, had no strong objections to the findings in the Boston Pacific report and stated it was very much in line with the utilities’ own numbers.

“Construction and fuel costs were very close to our own numbers,” Sharp said. “The simple reason for the difference in construction costs is that we originally used an estimated completion date of 2013 and the long approval process resulted in Boston Pacific pushing that to 2015.”

As for the criticism that the applicants’ carbon dioxide tax fell below justified ranges, Sharp said that it is difficult to estimate a tax that does not yet exist and that the utilities used the estimates required by the PUC in their application.

There is much more to the battle over Big Stone II than cost estimates. Environmental concerns about carbon dioxide and mercury emissions, water usage and coal ash have been at the center of the four-year debate, but opposition groups have had success only in Minnesota.

Existing Minnesota laws are at least partly to credit for that success, according to Chuck Laszewski of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

“Our laws are more restrictive for coal, largely because of recent legislation requiring emissions cuts,” said Laszewski.

In 2007 Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the Next Generation Energy Act, which required, among other things, greenhouse gas reduction goals of 15 percent by 2015, 30 percent by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050. With those goals in mind, many argue that the electricity produced by Big Stone II could be provided through alternative sources such as wind and solar energy.

Sharp countered that the upgraded transmission lines will be required for those solutions as well and said that Big Stone II is just one project being developed by utilities that are also developing alternative energy projects.

Both sides feel confident that the PUC will rule in their favor. Laszewski said he believes the PUC will deny the certificate of need based on the findings of the Boston Pacific report.

“If the permit is denied, we celebrate,” said Laszewski. “If it’s approved, our coalition will have to regroup and consider what our next step would be, if any.”

Sharp said he believes because the PUC has jurisdiction over only 12 percent of the entire project — the Minnesota portion of the transmission line upgrade — the commission will not deny North and South Dakota the benefits of Big Stone II.

“The main reason we believe it will be approved is there is such an overwhelming need in this region for upgraded transmission lines,” Sharp said. “If its denied, it will be a big disappointment, not just for us, but our customers and wind energy developers will be losing out as well.”

The PUC hears testimony beginning today and will reconvene Thursday morning.

The campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama quickly seized on the report and issued a statement lowering expectations for their candidate’s performance. The statement argued that “McCain’s debating skills are unparalleled,” and that “the expectations for him tonight are sky-high.”

More: Read the statement released by the Obama campaign

TO:      Interested Parties
FR:      The Obama Campaign
RE:      Home-field advantage: John McCain
DA:     September 26, 2008

Already declaring victory before the debate has even started, in ads running on the Wall Street Journal website, John McCain meets Barack Obama tonight to debate foreign policy – McCain’s professed area of expertise.

The centerpiece of John McCain’s campaign has been his more than a quarter century of experience in Washington learning about and debating foreign policy.   If he slips up, makes a mistake, or fails to deliver a game-changing performance, it will be a serious blow to his campaign.   Given his unsteady performance this week, he desperately needs to win this debate in a big way in order to change the topic and get back to his home turf.

For eight years, McCain has marched in lockstep with every single major Bush decision, while Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and has called for a focus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda.  Americans want to know whether John McCain will stop spending $10 billion in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a $79surplus and our economy is in turmoil.  Will he continue a policy that has taken our eye off al Qaeda and Afghanistan, and let Iran make progress in building a nuclear weapon?  Will he continue the cowboy diplomacy and empty bluster that has shredded our alliances and set back our standing in the world?  The fact is, John McCain will continue more of these same failed foreign policies. Barack Obama will lead us in a new direction.

On the economy, McCain’s words and actions over the course of the past week have illuminated his lack of expertise.  He admitted he does not understand the economy — his erratic, out-of-touch behavior this week, his failure to do anything of substance to move the agreement forward on the bailout, and his commitment to continuing Bush economic policies, demonstrate it.  But there are some questions we might see answered tonight after McCain’s misadventure to Washington and the phony ‘suspension’ of his campaign.  For example, will McCain finally say where he stands on the unworkable and counterproductive House Republican plan?  Will he be willing to buck his own party?

According to the pundits, McCain’s debating skills are unparalleled, as you can see below, and the expectations for him tonight are sky-high.

MCCAIN DEBATE PERFORMANCE

New York Times: A Review Of Debates Show That McCain Is Most Comfortable And Authentic When The Subject Is Foreign Policy. McCain “heads into the first debate on Friday with a track record as a scrappy combatant and the instincts of a fighter pilot, prepared to take out his opponent and willing to take risks to do so. … A review of several of Mr. McCain’s debates shows that he is most comfortable and authentic when the subject is foreign policy. And in a stroke of good fortune, foreign policy is the topic for Friday, the first of three 90-minute debates with Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.” [New York Times, 9/23/08]

New York Times: McCain Is Likely To Steer The Conversation To His Captivity In Vietnam Which He Showcased Triumphantly Last October In The Debate In A Discourse About Hillary Clinton’s Earmark For The Woodstock Concert Museum Where He Mentioned That He “Was Tied Up At The Time” Of The Concert. “McCain is likely to steer the conversation, as he has in prior debates, to his captivity in Vietnam. It was the bedrock experience of his life and is the organizing principle of his political identity. … He showcased it most triumphantly last October in a debate in Orlando, Florida. The moderator noted that while McCain had strongly supported the troop surge in Iraq, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then seen as the likely Democratic nominee, wanted to pull the troops out. McCain was asked whether the surge was a winning issue for Republicans in 2008. With a quick nod to the troops, McCain, characteristically, hijacked the question and skipped to pork-barrel spending, his favorite mode of attack. ‘In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum,’ McCain said slyly. ‘Now, my friends, I wasn’t there,’ he continued, letting it sink in why he had missed that festival in 1969. ‘I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event,’ he deadpanned, pausing again to stoke the culture wars. ‘I was tied up at the time.’ The audience roared with approval and rose to its feet for an extended ovation.” [International Herald Tribune, 9/23/08]

Nate Silver: The Foreign Policy Debate Plays To McCain’s Strengths. “There is little doubt that a discussion on foreign policy is playing to McCain’s strengths. Even when Obama may be winning a foreign policy argument on points, it probably benefits McCain for foreign policy to be the subject of discussion, period, as it brings his experience, war heroism and purported readiness to the fore.” [TNR, 9/23/08]

Emory University Assistant Professor of Political Science Andra Gillespie: McCain “Enters The Debate As The Substantive Favorite.” Gillespie: “Because John McCain holds the issue advantage on national security, he enters the debate as the substantive favorite.” [Andra Gillespie, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 9/21/08]

Vanderbilt University Professor John Geer: McCain Has An Edge In The Foreign Policy Debate. Geer: “McCain has an edge in this debate, since the topic is foreign policy. Obama needs to show his own understanding of the international affairs.” [John Geer, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 9/21/08]

Georgia State University Professor Mary Stuckey: Foreign Policy Would Seem To Favor McCain Rather Than Obama. Stuckey: “Foreign policy would seem to favor McCain rather than Obama, and I would expect McCain to rely heavily on his personal experience and biography as evidence of his foreign policy expertise.” [Mary Stuckey, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 9/21/08]

Heilemann: The Debate On Foreign Policy Is “A Lucky Break For McCain” And A “Chance To Move The Debate To Ground That Favors Him.” “But the story line of the campaign is about to pivot to foreign policy and national security. Why? Because those are the topics on the agenda at the first Obama-McCain debate this coming Friday at Ole Miss. A lucky break for McCain, I hear you saying, a chance to move the debate to ground that favors him. And you may be right.” [John Heilemann, New York Magazine, 9/21/08]

OBAMA DEBATE PERFORMANCE

DEBATES ARE NOT A GOOD FORMAT FOR OBAMA

New York Times: Obama’s Debating Skills Are “Uneven” As He Has “A Tendency To Overintellectualize And To Lecture” And “Frequently Rises Above The Mire Of Political Combat When The Battle Calls For Engagement.”  “Senator Barack Obama has shown himself at times to be a great orator. His debating skills, however, have been uneven. Some of his chief strengths — his facility with words, his wry detachment, his reasoning skills, his youthful cool — have not always served him well and may pose significant vulnerabilities in the series of presidential debates that begins Friday, according to political analysts and a review of his earlier debate performances. Mr. Obama has a tendency to overintellectualize and to lecture, befitting his training as a lawyer and law professor. He exudes disdain for the quips and sound bites that some deride as trivializing political debates but that have become a central part of scoring them. He tends to the earnest and humorless when audiences seem to crave passion and personality. He frequently rises above the mire of political combat when the battle calls for engagement.” [New York Times, 9/23/08]

AP: Obama Comes Across As “Lifeless, Aloof, And Windy” During Debates. “For a man known as a powerful speaker, Obama has rarely wowed people in political debates. He can come across as lifeless, aloof and windy.” [AP, 9/20/08]
Fallows: Obama Never Managed To “Receive Big Acclaim After A Debate.”  “While Hillary Clinton time and again beat expectations, Obama never managed to put her away or receive big acclaim after a debate.” [The Atlantic, September 2008]

John King Said Democrats Worry That Obama Is To Professorial Or Too Subdued In Debate Settings.  John King said on CNN, “While Obama excels at the big event, some democrats worry he’s too professorial or too subdued in debate- style settings like last weekend’s faith forum.” [CNN, 8/22/08]

The Sunlight Foundation has put together a fascinating animated graph that tracks the political donations from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors and to which party the money has gone. Utilizing Google Motion Chart and 20 years worth of data gathered by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the chart seeks to demonstrate how Wall Street came to carry such influence in our government.

More: Explore the Google Motion Chart

“The answer is revealed by the fact that the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) industries that collectively are at the center of the current crisis are the single-largest sector by far of all the major economic and interest groupings that give campaign contributions to federal politicians,” Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation explains.

TechPresident’s Micah Sifry documented the response and noted email campaigns from  MoveOn, CredoAction, TrueMajority, and the National Taxpayers Union. 

Sarah Lai Stirland reports that a protest, in which demonstrators plan to dump their trash in front of Wall Street’s Charging Bronze Bull, began with a single email sent by a journalist to a list of friends. Depending on how the federal government proceeds, similar protests could spring up across the country. TrueMajority has even put together “event kits” that provide everything a local organizer needs to demonstrate against the bailout.

Also receiving a lot of attention is the Sunlight Foundation’s Publicmarkup.org, which is described as an “ongoing experiment in preparing legislation more inclusively by opening bills to online, public review.” Proposals from the Treasury Department and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., have been posted in their entirety.

As serious as the financial crisis is, it also provides an ample opportunity for snark. BuyMyShitPile.com is the virtual way to have the federal government pay off those worthless impulse purchases and acquired liabilities. Items submitted include gently used padding for presidential flyboy suit, a 2006 Buffy the Vampire Slayer calendar and a used scent stories player.

Perhaps best capturing the collective contempt for the $700 billion dollar request is The Seminal’s faux Nigerian spam as written by the Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America, one Henry Merritt “Hank” Paulson Jr. The letter reads as follows:

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

Henry Merritt “Hank” Paulson Jr. is the United States Treasury Secretary and member of the International Monetary Fund Board of Governors. He previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs.