EC February 2009

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

15 participants
54 discussions

Jim Sconyers - new phone number. 304.906.6628
by Jim Sconyers 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

I have a new phone number. It its: 304.906.6628. This is my only number. It replaces my old number of 603.969.6712, which is now dead. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: PEC files with the Virginia Supreme Court
by James Kotcon 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

_If you have trouble reading this message, view it online here_ (http://citizen-networks.org/pec/all-msgs.html) (http://www.pecva.org/) An Extraordinary Motion Prompted by Extraordinary Circumstances Dear Donna, With _demand dropping_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/qd_mD8Y19uF_/) , the SCC should have to take another look. When the State Corporation Commission decided to approve the 500 kV transmission line project, it relied on PJM's forecasts regarding future electricity use. Turns out PJM's forecasts were way off the mark. Demand for electricity dropped this year, and according to PJM, it's going to drop further. We've filed _a motion with the Virginia Supreme Court_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/q7_mD8Y19uFA/) asking them to vacate the State Corporation Commission's approval and send the case back for further review. Electricity Demand is Down Demand for electricity was down this past summer --PJM's 2008 unrestricted _peak was down_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/a1_mD8Y19uFN/) over 10,000 megawatts from 2007. PJM expects further declines this coming summer. For reference, the average coal plant generates 600 MW and the average 500 kV transmission line carries 3,000 MW. In light of this precipitous drop in demand, the State Corporation Commission has more time to properly evaluate both need and alternatives. In their decision this past fall, the SCC Commissioners discounted alternatives presented by respondents like PEC, Fauquier County and Virginia's Commitment. The Judges ruled that the alternatives we presented were not certain to be in place in time to avoid potential overloads in 2011. Now that demand is dropping, that 2011 time frame should no longer constrain the Commission's decision making process. With Falling Demand, the SCC Should Take Another Look Our _VA Supreme Court Motion_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/q7_mD8Y19uFA/) was filed by Richmond attorney Patrick McSweeney. Here's a short excerpt from the introduction: "This is an extraordinary motion prompted by extraordinary circumstances. The facts and assumptions upon which the State Corporation Commission predicated its decision to approve the construction of the [transmission line] have changed dramatically since the Commission entered its October 7, 2008 order, from which the appeal is taken. The drastic decline in the national economy and the economy of the relevant multi-state region has significantly affected the demand for electricity in the area to be served by the transmission line at issue. There is no present of near-term need for the new transmission line if the reduced level of demand for electricity that is now projected by disinterested expert sources and the expert on whom the applicants relied is substantially accurate." West Virginia Case Still Open, Pennsylvania Group Files Appeal While we continue the fight in Virginia, other citizens and groups are pushing for a better result in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In PA, the _Energy Conservation Coalition_ (http://citizen-networks.org/ct/qp_mD8Y19uFM/) has filed an extensive and compelling appeal. In West Virginia, a number of PSC conditions have not been met by TrAILCo, and no final order has been granted. In the meantime, we're working on our grounds for appeal and expect to file "assignments of error" with the Virginia Supreme Court shortly. Very best, Bri West Piedmont Environmental Council _bwest(a)pecva.bwe_ (mailto:bwest@pecva.org)

1 0

Fwd: MI: Links to some key documents and Governor's Executive Directive 2009-2
by Paul Wilson 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

Lots of information here. But check out this website Clean Energy Now is the name -- www.cleanenergynowmi.org . It would be great to do something like this in WV. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne Woiwode <Anne.Woiwode(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:51 PM Subject: MI: Links to some key documents and Governor's Executive Directive 2009-2 To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Folks: Below is a draft summary I put together on Governor Granholm's Executive Directive, along with some links. The full State of State is also of interest because it lays out the full energy agenda ( http://www.michigan.gov/documents/gov/SOS2009_265915_7.pdf on pages 5 through 7) Some of the key documents that were produced by our amazing legal team (Faith Bugel and Meleah Geertsma of Environmental Law and Policy Center, Shannon Fisk of NRDC, Bruce Nilles, James Gignac and David Bender for Sierra Club, and more recently Noah Hall of Great Lakes Environmental Law Center) are posted on the GLELC blog site: http://www.glelc.org/glelc/clean-energy.html . These folks did a phenomenal job of looking at the opportunities for creatively tackling the fight in Michigan. This started in the summer of 2007 with two separate petitions submitted to the Michigan DEQ requesting the Director to regulate CO2 in keeping with the Supreme Court's direction (one petition was a request for rulemaking submitted by a small group near the Wolverine Power Cooperative proposed plant in Rogers City, the other was a request for declaratory ruling submitted by our group of initial collaborative organizations). While both of these failed, the practice of working together started that fall, and we kept reenforcing it. Another site of interest was mentioned by Jan O'Connell -- Lee Sprague, who came on board with Sierra Club almost a year ago, worked with a volunteer web designer who has been willing to have a site put up that is shared by our collaborative group (Clean Energy Now is the name -- www.cleanenergynowmi.org ) which Lee worked to get up and running probably 6 to 8 months ago -- it has its flaws, but it has been a useful place to send folks for updates on all the plants. Since not every member group of our collaborative is working on every plant, it is useful to have a single site for all of them If anyone is interested in seeing our original plan, I'm happy to share it with you. We put it together in an interative process with the dozen groups originally involved in the Clean Energy Now collaborative, and this was the basis for what was provided to the Energy Foundation when they requested grant proposals for the Michigan coal fight. The plan was accompanied by several appendices, which included details about strategies to be implemented in each community, the state-wide strategy, the beginnings of a communication plan, and information about each organization that was a partner and what they were doing or proposing to do. By laying it out this way, the Energy Foundation was able to select the groups that they work with and deal with them directly, rather than try to shoehorn all the groups into a single grant proposal with a single fiduciary agent, and since was still the early stages it helped us all learn to work together without competing for funds. I also do have a six page summary of the work over the course of the past eight months, since the plan was completed, that gives an idea of what we actually did. Again, let me know if you would like to see it. Thanks for all the kind words, and we are very eager to share what worked here, in particular because we know we are going to continue to need all of YOUR good advice well into the future! Anne Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter (517) 484-2372 ------------------------------ *From:* Anne Woiwode [mailto:Anne.Woiwode@sierraclub.org] *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2009 1:14 PM *To:* 'nocoalmi(a)mienv.org'; 'energy(a)mienv.org' *Subject:* DRAFT Discussion of the Governor's Executive Directive and State of the State Folks: As the dust is starting to settle and the PR from the coal and utility companies is beginning to heat up, I think it will be useful for all of us to get clear on *Executive Directive 2009-2, Consideration of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives in the Processing of Air Permit Applications from Coal-Fired Power Plants, http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-36898-208125--,00.html . *As we encounter resistance to this action, it is important to try to be as accurate and complete as possible because we are already seeing the Doctors of Spin both political and corporate get out there to question the legality and the fairness of the Governor's actions. After discussions with our terrific group of attorneys from ELPC, NRDC, GLELC and Sierra Club, I am taking a stab at a Q&A below to try to answer some of the questions I am guessing are out there. I will NOT pretend that this is all correct or at all complete, but lets use our forums here to raise and try to answer questions so we are all prepared to defend which is probably one of the boldest, if not the boldest, move by Governor Granholm in her 6 + year tenure as our state's CEO. *PLEASE TREAT THIS AS AN INTERNAL DISCUSSION DRAFT AND DO NOT FORWARD IT AS IS!!* *Q &A:* *What proposed coal plants does the ED apply to?* All the ones currently before the DEQ and any that might seek permits in the future. Northern Michigan University's permit was issued last year and is in appeals to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board, so is not covered. However, Wolverine, Holland, Consumers and MidMichigan are all covered, and if Lansing, M & M or Tondu were to apply they would also be covered. *Under what authority is the Governor taking this action? * The ED cites both the federal Clean Air Act and the state's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act as giving the Governor authority to act (see ED for specific cites). In fact, these provisions were suggested to the administration in memos sent to both the DEQ and the Governor last year drafted by NRDC, ELPC and Sierra Club's attorneys ( http://www.glelc.org/files/mi-co2-granholm-letter.pdf ) and also included in the comments submitted on the specific air pollution permits. The letter to Governor Granholm, while focused on CO2 regulation, provides a very good explanation of the authority the she and her administration have to take action to require consideration of alternatives to the proposed actions. *Is the Executive Directive the equivalent of a "new law"?* No. An Executive Directive is direction from the Governor to her Administrative agencies and staff on how to apply existing laws or to take specific actions already authorized in the law. With regard to ED 2009-2, the Governor is directing the DEQ to take steps to determine a) is there is a need for the power proposed to be generated by these coal fired plants, and b) to consider "feasible and prudent alternatives" to these facilities. The ED cites two specific provisions of law regarding the requirement to consider "feasible and prudent alternatives. The first is in state law under the section of NREPA know as the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). The second is the Clean Air Act Section 165(2)(a), which the ED points out gives "discretion" to the DEQ to "consider alternatives to proposed sources of air emissions when determining whether or not to grant an air permit to that source." The Governor's action tells her agency that they are to exercise that discretion. The ED also directs the Public Service Commission to assist the DEQ in its implementation of these directives, clarifying that this cross agency coordination is to occur. *Is this a "moratorium" on new coal plants?* No, this is not a moratorium on coal plants. It is instead clear direction from the Governor to her agencies that no new permits can be issued to coal plants without completion of these steps. Attempts to characterize this as a moratorium may well be efforts by the applicants and their supporters to pretend that the Governor's actions are overstepping legal bounds, when in fact her ED is well within her discretion. Instead, it should be understood that the ED reflects conclusions of the administration based on today's realities that may be responsive in part to comments raised in public comment on the Wolverine and Holland permits and in memoranda submitted to both the Governor and the DEQ. Neither Michigan nor any other state has faced so many proposals to build coal plants (the Governor used the words "a slew of new coal power plants" in her State of the State), combined with growing concerns about the environmental impacts, clear documentation of declining demand for electric generation, and passage of RPS and EE requirements last year that promise even more reductions in demand for new coal plants. As DEQ's Press Secretary Robert McCann said in a Bay City Times article: "It's an addition, part of a review that's going to be done," he said. "It makes our review more comprehensive and frankly, a lot more real-world based. "There's a growing concern among the public that we have these five new applications in for power plants, but is there really a need for five new coal plants?" Prior to the governor's directive, the DEQ was only able to evaluate each permit for meeting air quality regulations, McCann said.' *Is the Governor going back on agreements struck in passing the 2008 energy legislation?* No. The utilities and others proposing new coal plants are desperate to claim that there was a violation of "agreements" made last year, suggesting that one of more of the coal plants was "promised". This is posturing for political benefit only, and if any such agreements were made they would have been contrary to requirements of the Clean Air Act and NREPA that environmental protections must be assured. Some contention is also made that since Consumers Energy is already required by the laws passed last year to do a needs assessment under the Integrated Resources Plan requirements, in order to obtain a Certificate of Need from the Public Service Commission, that this is somehow changing the rules. The PSC is still in the process of developing the requirements for the IRP and the DEQ has been directed in the ED to work with the PSC in this process, so there is no reason to think that this would be in anyway inconsistent with the law passed last year. As pointed out in the ED, the Governor is not making new law, she is simply making clear how her agencies should apply existing laws to these circumstances. *How will this process play out?* In discussions with the DEQ last week it was explained that they have not yet figured out exactly how this process will unfold. Over the course of the next few weeks we can expect the agency, working with the Public Service Commission, to put together the steps they will pursue. This is an important time for members of the public to feel free to suggest ways that agency should proceed, and to assure that they have information that may help shape the best process, and several groups following the specific coal plants will be seeking to engage the agency in discussions about their process. While we expect the public will have input into this process, the details for that are not yet spelled out. *What happens to the comments already received by DEQ on Wolverine and Holland?* Because these requirements are additive to the permitting process that has been underway on both of these plants, all of the comments and input on those permits will be part of the record going forward. However, we are also convinced that both of these proposals are already fatally flawed and would not warrant issuance of an air quality Permit to Install today, even short of the needs assessment and alternatives assessment. It is certainly appropriate for all of us to argue that DEQ should deny these permits outright. If the applicants chose to submit new applications, they would still be required to meet the requirements for needs assessments and alternatives consideration. However, there is no excuse for moving these into those stages of review when the permits should be denied outright based on public comment to date. *DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DO NOT FORWARD* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anne M. Woiwode, State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter - 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906 - 517-484-2372 anne.woiwode(a)sierraclub.org http://michigan.sierraclub.org/index.shtml Support the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter - contact Wendi Tilden at wendi.tilden(a)sierraclub.org *The bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis - Al Gore* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Fwd: Re: Manchin's "alternative energy" bill online now
by James Kotcon 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

Below are comments from myself and Vickie Wolfe (Chair of WVEC's Renewable Energy Committee) on the Gov's AREPS bill (attached). Jim Sconyers asked if this bill was legit. I am more pessimistic than Vickie because, although the bill defines "Advanced Coal Technology" to mean carbon capture or advanced high efficiency technologies to reduce carbon emissions, the actual portfolio standard also allows existing plants that burn coalbed methane, coal waste, or even tire-derived fuels, to qualify for the credits. That means that 20-year-old plants like the MEA Beechurst Avenue plant in Morgantown would qualify as generating these credits. I also re-read the text of the speech, and it is not clear if Manchin is even aware that WV already has net metering rules in place. If he is, his bill would actually weaken current rules under the guise of expanding them. If not, it makes me wonder how competent his staff is. JBK >>> Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com> 2/12/2009 2:28 AM >>> First to address the question Danny posed to just a few of us, I too have not yet studied the bill, just read it briefly--it's too late in the day for my brain to work well. But the bill does not specify how much energy must come from each source. As I understand it from my cursory reading, utilities are required to acquire credits (one credit = one mwh) equal to 25% of the electricity they sold in the preceding year. They receive one credit for each mwh purchased from an "alternative energy resource facility" (see definition (c), p. 4); two credits for each mwh purchased from a "renewable energy resource facility;" and three credits for each mwh purchased from a "renewable energy resource facility" that's sited on a reclaimed surface mine. To be honest with you, I'm not too worried about many of those "alternative" sources; I think the gov might've outfoxed himself. I think "advanced coal technology" (see definitions) will be too expensive. So will coal gasification/IGCC. In case you're not aware, currently there exist only TWO IGCC facilities in the whole U.S. FutureGen--which was an IGCC facility that was to include CCS--was shelved because it was too expensive. So I guess I'm more optimistic than Jim. No, there's no requirement for renewable energy per se; but there is a requirement for energy that comes from "alternative" sources that INCLUDE renewables; and I'm thinking market forces may actually drive these credits toward renewables. (Please feel free to argue with me, Jim.) The provision I saw that concerned me most was that there's an "out" on p. 17: the portfolio standards may be "eliminated if the commission determines that alternative or renewable energy resources are not reasonably available." ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: <Duane330(a)aol.com>; "Kathryn Stone" <XKatwalkx(a)aol.com>; "Denise Poole" <deniseap(a)earthlink.net>; <kgrubb(a)fairmontstate.edu>; "Matt Sherald" <matt(a)getpimby.com>; "Vickie Wolfe" <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com>; "Trevor Swan" <levelingAppalachia(a)gmail.com>; "matt noerpel" <mnoerpel(a)gmail.com>; "Rory McIlmoil" <rorygep(a)gmail.com>; "Daniel Chiotos" <trouserdude(a)gmail.com>; "Vivian Stockman" <v.stock(a)gmail.com>; "Vernon Haltom" <vernoncrmw(a)gmail.com>; "Mary Wildfire" <mwildfire(a)hotmail.com>; <pjgrunt(a)lycos.com>; "Heather N Sprouse" <sprouse15(a)marshall.edu>; "Mel Tyree PhD" <tyree13(a)marshall.edu>; "Frank YOUNG" <fyoung(a)mountain.net>; "Bill Price" <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org>; <haning2(a)verizon.net>; <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>; <unclesteve197(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Manchin's "alternative energy" bill online now I have read over this bill twice, and I cannot see any requirement for renewable energy. As I read this, a utility could achieve its entire portfolio standard from "alternative" sources, which could include existing coal-fired power plants that use pressurized fluidized bed boilers, or from an IGCC boiler. The could use coalbed methane, tire-derived fuels, or a "pump-storage" hydro facility, in which the original energy comes from coal. I am concerned that the net-metering provisions appear to open up our current rules to allow coal for net-metering incentives. It also appears to me that this bill would offer fewer credits for carbon emissions offsets to sequester carbon in trees, etc., than are generated from the coal in the first place. My calculations suggest that a utility would get 4-6 "credits" for burning a ton of coal in an approved power plant, thereby releasing something like 2 tons of carbon dioxide, but would only get two credits if they fix those two tons of carbon dioxide in trees. Unless my math is wrong (and it is late, so somebody double check this before you quote me), a utility gets more credits for polluting the air than they get for cleaning it up. (1 BTU = 0.293 W-hours) 1 pound of coal is 8,000-12,000 BTU If coal is 60 % carbon, 1 ton of coal yields 2.2 tons Carbon dioxide It looks like this "standard" would put West Virginia seriously out of compliance with any of the RPS standards in surrounding states, and would likely lead us down a blind alley, setting up a system that would not meet the requirements of any likely national Renewable Portfolio Standard. Am I missing something, or is this worse than nothing? I keep looking for the pony, but I just don't see it. Jim Kotcon >>> Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com> 2/12/2009 12:07 AM >>> Everyone, Didja watch the State of the State address? Ken Ward has posted the draft text of Manchin's "Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard" on his blog: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vickie L. Wolfe PHONE: (304) 744-8777 E-MAIL: IBTreehugger(a)gmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Think coal-derived electricity is "cheap"? Visit http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/?page=entire

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, WithEnvy
by Michael Price 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

3 2

Fw: National Smart Grid Problems | Getting Recovery Right | "Clean Coal" Ads Illegal?
by Jim Sconyers 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Prerty good discussion of "national" "smart" grid issues. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Tue, 2/10/09, AlterNet Environment <alternet(a)democracyinaction.org> wrote: From: AlterNet Environment <alternet(a)democracyinaction.org> Subject: National Smart Grid Problems | Getting Recovery Right | "Clean Coal" Ads Illegal? To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 4:47 PM AlterNet Newsletter Environment Newsletter February 10th, 2009 More from Environment » Why Obama's Plan to Help Renewable Energy May Backfire and Aid Big Coal By David Morris, AlterNet Obama's plan for a "national smart" grid needs closer examination. An expanded national grid would be anything but smart. Read more » We've got a lot of great content this week, including info on the stimulus winding its way through Congress and a super piece from Gwen Schantz about the crazy techno schemes that have been proposed to save us from climate change. But I'd like to take a couple moments to point you toward the piece by David Morris. There is a lot of debate right now about expanding the national grid. The rhetoric around it usually mentions that it will help renewable energy become more viable. But Morris points out some big differences between "smart grid" technology and an expanded national grid, which would actually aid big industry, like coal and not renewables. The devil is in the details as they say, and in this case, we'd better start paying attention to these difference quickly. Thanks for reading, Tara Lohan, Senior Editor Getting the Recovery Right By Robert Pollin, The Nation How to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice and economic recovery. Read more » Van Jones: "This Is Not Your Grandma's Environmental Movement Anymore" By Ariane Conrad, The Rumpus The tanking economy is also changing the environmental movement. Van Jones talks about what we should be doing next. Read more » Can Crazy Techno Schemes Actually Save Us from Climate Change? By Gwen Schantz, AlterNet From blocking out the sun with "space shields" to fertilizing the oceans with carbon-consuming algae, will the magic of science save us? Read more » Do "Clean Coal" Ads Violate FTC/FCC Standards? By Jeff Biggers, AlterNet Looks like the coal industry is guilty of "deception by omission." Read more » What Obama Needs to Do Now to Ensure Success of International Climate Talks By Michael Northrop, David Sassoon, Yale Environment 360 If crucial climate negotiations later this year in Copenhagen are to have any chance of success, the U.S. must take the lead. Read more » What's The Matter With Kansas? The Fight Against Big Coal Hits the State Legislature, with National Repercussions. By Simran Sethi, Huffington Post The nation is at risk of losing the first real stand of public heath officials and government against one of the most polluting industries. Read more » Support AlterNet | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe from Environment Unsubscribe from all future AlterNet communications. You are subscribed as jim_scon(a)yahoo.com © 2007 Independent Media Institute All Rights Reserved 77 Federal St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94110

2 1

Re: [EC] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, WithEnvy
by jbc329＠earthlink.net 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

>From my experience with those two companies, which I admit is not very broad, when you ask them a question they do everything they can to avoid the answering part, they do just about anything they can to dodge it to the point where you forget what you asked in the first place.... John Christensen jbc329(a)earthlink.net "Come forth into the light of things, Let nature be your teacher." William Wordsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Price To: jbc329(a)earthlink.net Cc: jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; DSGJr(a)aol.com; ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com; EC(a)osenergy.org Sent: 2/11/2009 9:56:46 AM Subject: Re: Re: [EC] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green,WithEnvy Maybe we should ask them? mike Feb 11, 2009 09:25:42 AM, jbc329(a)earthlink.net wrote: Leave it up to California to lead the nation in this sort of activity, can you imagine AEP or Alegeny doing the same? John Christensen jbc329(a)earthlink.net "Come forth into the light of things, Let nature be your teacher." William Wordsworth > [Original Message] > From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> > To: <DSGJr(a)aol.com>; <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com>; <EC(a)osenergy.org> > Date: 2/11/2009 8:53:21 AM > Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, WithEnvy > > Here is a great way to encourage energy efficiency. Let's keep this in our toolbox as we talk up the energy efficiency standards bill. > > JBK > > > SCIENCE / ENVIRONMENT | January 31, 2009 > Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, With Envy > By LESLIE KAUFMAN > Customers in California have been using less electricity, driven by their utility to compete with their neighbors. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31compete.html?emc=eta1 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ABOUT THIS E-MAIL > This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. > > NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company > _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, With Envy
by James Kotcon 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Here is a great way to encourage energy efficiency. Let's keep this in our toolbox as we talk up the energy efficiency standards bill. JBK SCIENCE / ENVIRONMENT | January 31, 2009 Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, With Envy By LESLIE KAUFMAN Customers in California have been using less electricity, driven by their utility to compete with their neighbors. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31compete.html?emc=eta1 ---------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

2 1

Re: [EC] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, WithEnvy
by jbc329＠earthlink.net 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Leave it up to California to lead the nation in this sort of activity, can you imagine AEP or Alegeny doing the same? John Christensen jbc329(a)earthlink.net "Come forth into the light of things, Let nature be your teacher." William Wordsworth > [Original Message] > From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> > To: <DSGJr(a)aol.com>; <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>; Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com>; <EC(a)osenergy.org> > Date: 2/11/2009 8:53:21 AM > Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, WithEnvy > > Here is a great way to encourage energy efficiency. Let's keep this in our toolbox as we talk up the energy efficiency standards bill. > > JBK > > > SCIENCE / ENVIRONMENT | January 31, 2009 > Utilities Turn Their Customers Green, With Envy > By LESLIE KAUFMAN > Customers in California have been using less electricity, driven by their utility to compete with their neighbors. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31compete.html?emc=eta1 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ABOUT THIS E-MAIL > This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. > > NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company >

1 0

Fw: National Smart Grid Problems | Getting Recovery Right | "Clean Coal" Ads Illegal?
by Jim Sconyers 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC February 2009