I see that WVSC is listed as a participant. That's great! Even though WVCAG has promoted this day as a joining of all progressive groups, E Day is separate and occupies the top floor. My understanding is that other progressive groups who had chosen the same day will be located on the lower level.
Jim, can you please send out the flyer to the SC membership?
________________________________
From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Denise Poole [deniseap(a)earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:15 PM
To: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com
Subject: [wvec-board] E-Day Flyer
Attached: One file, 2 pages. 1st page: E-Day at the Capitol. 2nd page: E-Day Benefit & Award Dinner.
Print, use, send out as you feel appropriate ...
Write up and agenda is also in this weeks legislative update, going out to e-list any moment now.
See many of you Wednesday.
Denise
Denise Poole, WVEC
deniseap(a)earthlink.net<mailto:deniseap%40earthlink.net>
(304) 617-7073
In the PATH fight, we had legislative wins every year for the last three
years. Now that PATH is on hold, some of us have been working with Energy
Efficient West Virginia and the WV Environmental Council to go on the
offensive in some broader issues connected to the WV electrical system.****
** **
This year, we are working to pass Senate Bill 162 which would establish a
least cost planning process (also known as Integrated Resource Planning, or
IRP) in WV. 27 other states have created these processes. In an IRP
system, power companies are required to provide the state PSC with the *full
* range of options, along with a cost/benefit analysis of each option, for
meeting the state electrical needs, both in terms of demand and reliability.
****
** **
John Christensen from the WV E-Council and Cathy Kunkel from EEWV are
working hard to move SB162 through the Legislature in the current session.
We have a really good chance of getting it through, because there is strong
support from legislators to hold down electric rates. The Senate
leadership, primarily Senate Majority Leader John Unger, has been very
helpful. Because the bill was introduced directly into the Senate
Judiciary Committee by Sen. Dan Foster (D, Kanawha), once the bill passes
that committee, it will go directly to the Senate floor for a vote.****
** **
Currently, the WV PSC has no mechanism for influencing or directing how
power companies make the investment or spending decisions that have driven
up our electric rates over 40% in the last 5 years. Least cost planning
has the potential to hold down future rate increases by allowing the PSC,
CAD and intervenors in rate cases to use the plan to argue against certain
choices that power companies make that lead to higher rates. A WV least
cost planning process would:****
** **
**1. **Give ratepayers an opportunity to comment on power company plans
during the creation of the plan, instead of being forced to challenge
individual decisions in rate cases, after those decisions have already been
made by power companies,****
**2. **Give citizens, the Consumer Advocate and PSC staff a tool to push
the power companies toward increasing efficiency programs and demand
management, instead of simply building more plants and buying more
electricity,****
**3. **Open real discussion at the PSC about the real costs and benefits
of existing generation technologies in comparison with home/business based
renewable power generation.****
** **
We have thought, for the past week, that Sen. Corey Palumbo, chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee was ready to put SB162 on the committee
agenda for passage. Power company lobbyists have swooped in and are trying
to gut the bill. AEP subsidiary Appalachian Power CEO Charles Patton made
a special trip to the Capitol yesterday to talk with Chairman Palumbo and
sponsor Sen. Foster. That is how worried the power companies are about
having their decisions reviewed openly in public.****
** **
So we need your help to keep power company changes from diluting SB162.
Right now, we need you to contact by email or phone the following members
of the Senate Judiciary Committee listed below. Our message is simple:
Please (always say please) keep SB162 in its introduced form, without
changes or amendments. That is all we need at this point.****
** **
*We need you to make these contacts today Feb. 2 or tomorrow Feb. 3, to be
effective*. If you cannot make these contacts now, do it on Monday. If
you only want to contact a few people, Sen. Palumbo and Sen. Foster are the
most important, because they are the only people actively involved in any
revisions to the bill before it goes to the full committee for a vote.
Please contact all committee members if you can.****
** **
Here is some more detailed background, which you do not have to mention in
your message to senators. AEP subsidiary CEO Patton wants the language in
the original bill changed to the language in the current, very weak, VA IRP
statute. Here is a link to the original
SB162<http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb162%20int…>written
by Cathy Kunkel, as introduced by Sen. Foster. Compare our strong
bill with the weak language in the VA statute
here<http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+56-599>
.****
** **
The VA statute contains only very vague language about public participation
being *heard* and limits consideration to only a few factors in power
company investment. Our bill is much stronger. Patton also wants us to
use the words *Integrated Resource Planning* instead of the words *least
cost planning* in our bill, because he does not want the focus on cutting
power company costs, leaving them more wiggle room with the PSC. We
believe that we can compromise here, as long as the goal of IRP is
identified as finding the lowest cost resources in the definition of IRP at
the end of the bill.****
** **
If we can get an acceptable bill out of Senate Judiciary, which appears
likely, and if enough of us contact committee members to help them resist
the power companies, we may only need to ask you for another round of
contacts when SB162 gets to House Judiciary, in about 2 weeks.****
** **
Please take a moment and copy the pre-formatted email address list below
into your email address field and change the field from *to* to *bcc*.
Type in the following: Please pass SB162 without changes; or something
like that in the subject field and type an email saying simply that you
would like the committee to pass SB162 as introduced by Sen. Foster without
any changes or amendments. You may also want to remind them that this is
the best way to minimize future electric rate increases.****
** **
Thanks for your help on this. We will keep you updated as the bill moves
along.****
** **
Here is the current contact list for Senate Judiciary Committee members:****
** **
Cut and paste email addresses:****
** **
corey.palumbo(a)wvsenate.gov, mark.wills(a)wvsenate.gov, bob.beach(a)wvsenate.gov,
richard.browning(a)wvsenate.gov, john.fanning(a)wvsenate.gov,
daniel.foster(a)camc.org, evan.jenkins(a)wvsenate.gov,
art.kirkendoll(a)wvsenate.gov, orphy.klempa(a)wvsenate.gov,
joe.minard(a)wvsenate.gov, herb.snyder(a)wvsenate.gov, greg.tucker(a)wvsenate.gov,
john.unger(a)wvsenate.gov, bob.williams(a)wvsenate.gov,
clark.barnes(a)wvsenate.gov, karen.facemyer(a)wvsenate.gov,
dcnohe(a)suddenlink.net****
** **
Here are phone numbers:****
** **
Sen. Palumbo, chair (304) 357-7880****
Sen. Wills, vice chair (304) 357-7843****
Sen. Beach (304) 357-7919****
Sen Browning (304) 357-7807****
Sen. Fanning (304) 357-7867****
Sen. Foster, sponsor of SB 162 (304) 357-7866****
Sen. Jenkins (304) 357-7956****
Sen. Kirkendoll (304) 357-7857****
Sen. Klempa (304) 357-7918****
Sen. Minard (304) 357-7904****
Sen. Snyder (304) 357-7957****
Sen. Tucker (304) 357-7906****
Sen. Unger (304) 357-7933****
Sen. Williams (304) 357-7995****
Sen. Barnes (304) 357-7973****
Sen. Facemyer (304) 357-7855****
Sen. Nohe (304) 357-7970
You have received this e-mail because you opted to do so. If you wish to
unsubscribe from this mailing list please click
here<http://www.fatcow.com/utils/UnSubscribeMe.bml?Name=moo.forreliablepowercom&…>
--
Jim Sconyers
jimscon(a)gmail.com
304.698.9628
Remember, Mother Nature bats last.
To the Energy Committee:
As we start to look at power plant closures, the issue of "reliability" of the electric power supply is likely to be raised as an excuse to keep these plants open. I fear that, instead of closing old inefficient plants, the utilities will push for dramatic rate increases to install scrubbers, and that our "Friends of Coal" legislators will do whatever it takes to support that goal. You will certainly here stories of the California energy crisis of 1999-2000 when blackouts and brownouts were threatened. You will almost certainly NOT hear that this "crisis" was almost entirely manufactured by ENRON and that the "crisis" was averted almost exclusively through the use of efficiency mandates. By switching to a "time of use" metering, consumers were charged extra for using electricity during peak periods, and responded almost overnight by shifting much of their electricity use to off-peak hours.
As new air rules are implemented, we need to be ready to respond quickly. The attached new report, and the press release below, identify an over-looked linkage between air regulatory and electric rate regulatory agencies. Certainly, West Virginia DEP does not consider efficiency as a viable alternative to pollution controls or look at it as an alternative to new power plants. The report documents that energy efficiency programs can both lower electric rates and reduce air pollution much more cheaply than new capacity. Please read it carefully.
I suggest that this report is a vehicle to begin that debate with both WV-DEP and the Public Service Commission.
Whaddya Tink?
Jim Kotcon
>>> Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> 1/31/2012 7:33 PM >>>
For those who want the actual report, see the PDF file attached.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you get a copy of the report please forward it. To get it requires more personal info than I wanted to give.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> wrote:
Energy Efficiency Is the Right Track for Clean Air
Energy Efficiency Should Be a Compliance Strategy for States and Utilities to Cost Effectively Achieve the Goals of Federal Air Regulations
Washington, D.C. (January 31, 2012): A new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) reveals how energy efficiency can be used by states, policymakers, and utilities developing compliance strategies to meet the goals of federal air regulations. As mandated under the Clean Air Act, a suite of upcoming air regulations will impose limits on the emissions of multiple air pollutants. The report, entitled Energy Efficiency: The Slip Switch to a New Track Toward Compliance with Federal Air Regulations (http://aceee.org/research-report/e122 ( http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4rt7cun6&et=1109185591504&s=1510&e=001X0jmecb… )), maps opportunities in these new regulations where energy efficiency can be used as a compliance tool.
"Although energy efficiency is our cheapest, cleanest, and quickest energy resource, it has often been ignored as a strategy for compliance with air regulations. But now the political, economic, and regulatory environments have aligned. We are on the threshold of a unique opportunity, a tipping point for energy efficiency," said Sara Hayes, ACEEE Senior Policy Analyst and lead author of the report.
"We selected major opportunities where energy efficiency can have a big impact. We unearthed a collection of good stories about what has already been tried and we found that there are some very promising opportunities. Energy efficiency can play a major role in regulations like the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and multiple federal permitting rules," said Rachel Young, Research Analyst ACEEE and coauthor of the report.
This report is the second in the "Path to Compliance" series by ACEEE that outlines a track for the U.S. to transition to a cleaner, more reliable energy future. The first paper in this series, Avoiding a Train Wreck: Replacing Old Coal Plants with Energy Efficiency (http://www.aceee.org/white-paper/avoiding-a-train-wreck ( http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=4rt7cun6&et=1109185591504&s=1510&e=001X0jmecb… )), explains that energy efficiency is a low-cost approach to reducing air pollution. The analysis shows that energy efficiency can be deployed much more quickly than a new power plant can be constructed and explains how energy efficiency is America's greatest untapped energy resource with massive potential.
"In our current economic climate, states and utilities need a cost-effective solution to reducing pollution, complying with EPA regulations, and maintaining reliable electricity for customers. The recommendations in this report will help to reduce emissions at the lowest cost," said Steven Nadel, Executive Director of ACEEE.
--
Bill Price, Organizing Representative
Sierra Club
Environmental Justice Program
Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign
Phone: 304-389-8822 ( tel:304-389-8822 ) (Cell)
Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org
--
Jim Sconyers
jimscon(a)gmail.com
304.698.9628 ( tel:304.698.9628 )
Remember, Mother Nature bats last.
--
Bill Price, Organizing Representative
Sierra Club
Environmental Justice Program
Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign
Phone: 304-389-8822 (Cell)
Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org