EC March 2013

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

10 participants
18 discussions

Re: [EC] [wvec-board] Fwd: Energy-Efficient Homes Are Much Less Likely to Go Into ...
by DSGJr＠aol.com 31 Mar '13

31 Mar '13

The House took up the rule, as HB 2660. It passed Gov Org, then Judiciary, and has been put in a different bundle, as HB 2626. No changes that I can find were made to the rule. It is on third reading on House Calendar on 4/01/13. Here is a link: _http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=HB2626%20SU B.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2626_ (http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=HB2626%20SU…) I have no idea why the House is originating this bundle, instead of the Senate. Probably just sharing the workload. And I have no idea why it is being held up for final passage. don garvin In a message dated 3/31/2013 3:42:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jkotcon(a)wvu.edu writes: Any idea what happened to the WV Energy Efficiency Building codes (87-CSR-4)? SB 251 went to Senate Judiciary, but was never taken up. Other Dept. of Commerce rules are in SB 250, but I can't find any reference to the energy building codes in the version on the Legislature's web page? Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Miller <_jen.miller(a)sierraclub.org_ (mailto:jen.miller@sierraclub.org) > Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM Subject: Energy-Efficient Homes Are Much Less Likely to Go Into Default To: _CONS-FRED(a)lists.sierraclub.org_ (mailto:CONS-FRED@lists.sierraclub.org) --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- New study by IMT that could be helpful to EE and building codes advocates! Energy-Efficient Homes Are Much Less Likely to Go Into Default * _Emily Badger_ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/authors/emily-badger/) * Mar 19, 2013 _http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/03/energy-efficient-homes-are -much-less-likely-go-default/5025/_ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/03/energy-efficient-homes-are…) Green builders and environmental advocates have long suspected it to be true that families living in energy-efficient homes might be less likely to get in trouble making their monthly mortgage payments. Their energy bills are lower and more predictable, without those wild swings between summer’s air conditioning costs and winter’s heating oil delivery. It also seems plausible that a homeowner who has weighed the up-front costs of energy improvements over the long-term payoff in lower utility bills might be equally conscientious in sizing up the risks of a 30-year mortgage. But there’s never been hard data to support any of this – let alone to help make the case that energy efficiency should be baked into how we underwrite mortgages. A _new study released today_ (http://www.imt.org/resources/detail/home-energy-efficiency-and-mortgage-ris…) attempts for the first time to quantify the connection between energy efficiency and default risk. The research, funded by the _Institute for Market Transformation_ (http://www.imt.org/) and led by University of North Carolina researcher Nikhil Kaza, looked at 71,000 nationally representative owner-occupied single-family homes, 21,000 of them with _Energy Star certifications_ (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cbd_guidebook.cbd_guidebook_apply_3) . And it turns out the energy-efficient houses were 32 percent less likely to go into default when sized up against comparable homes without that rating. The study looked at loans that originated between 2002 and 2012, spanning the mortgage crisis. And it also found that the more energy-efficient the house, the lower the default risk. The researchers controlled for the size and age of the houses, neighborhood income, climate, home value, local unemployment rates, utility prices and borrower credit scores, among other variables. And so this is not a snapshot of pricey solar-powered homes compared to 1950s-era bungalows. “We’re going to similar homes in the same neighborhoods, with the same price, with the same credit scores of the borrowers,” says Robert Sahidi, a co-author of the report’s executive summary and the director of the Energy Efficiency Finance Policy program at IMT. “It’s not like were picking somebody making $100,000 and comparing it to somebody making $50,000 with a lower credit score and a lower home price.” The average sale price of the non-Energy Star homes in the study was $218,461 (for 2,183 square feet), and $221,919 for the Energy Star homes (for 2,283 square feet). The homes also came from fairly prosperous zipcodes with average income of about $73,000 and an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. On this map, the Energy-Star homes studied in the paper are noted in red and the control homes in blue (data was unavailable for states like California that aren’t represented): As best as the researchers can tell in their data, there’s little visible difference between the two groups that might explain their varying default rates, other than the efficiency of their homes. “There’s always going to be some portion of unobserved variables that might explain some of this result,” says Kaza, who’s a researcher with the _UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Community Capital_ (http://www.ccc.unc.edu/) . “But we tried as much as we can to make sure control and treatment groups are roughly similar.” He can’t say, though, exactly why the default rates are significantly different. Does the added cost of all those utility bills really add up to the difference between defaulting on a mortgage or staying on top of it? Or is there some other explanation at play – that, for instance, the owners of energy-efficient homes are happier with where they live and more likely to try hard to stay there? Green homes can also be healthier ones, meaning that the families who live there may have lower medical expenses tugging at the family budget from another direction. “But under certain circumstances,” says Cliff Majersik, the executive director of IMT, “you can act on data like this without knowing which portion comes from lower utility bills, which portion comes from healthier homes, which portion comes from happier homeowners.” This evidence is enough, he argues, to justify adjusting federal mortgage guidelines to take into account the fact that would-be owners of energy-efficient homes pose a lower risk of default. A similar argument has been _made about “location-efficient” homes_ (http://www.cnt.org/tcd/location-efficiency/lem) , where homeowners arguably have more money to spend on housing as a result of their lower transportation costs. One day, it’s possible that federal mortgage guidelines could pursue these two ideas in tandem, weighting the benefits of housing that comes with both lower utility and transportation costs – and, in the process, increasing market demand for it. Top image: _Pupes_ (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-718555p1.html) /_Shutterstock_ (http://www.shutterstock.com/) Keywords: _utility bills_ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/utility-bills/) , _default_ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/default/) , _Mortgages_ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/mortgages/) , _energy efficiency_ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/energy-efficiency/) -- Jen Miller _(614)563-9543_ (tel:(614)563-9543) Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign pst....My work is now national in scope, but I'm still based in Columbus, Ohio (the Eastern Time Zone)! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: _CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG_ (mailto:CONS-FRED-signoff-request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG) Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: _http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp_ (http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp) To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: _http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp_ (http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp) __._,_.___ _Reply via web post_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWIzNGdpBF9TAzk3… Rtc2dJZAMzMzkzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2NDc1ODk2MA--?act=reply&mes sageNum=3393) _Reply to sender _ (mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu?subject=Re:%20Fwd:%20Energy-Efficient%20Homes%20Are%20Much%20Less%20Likely%20to%20Go%20Into% 20Default) _Reply to group _ (mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re:%20Fwd:%20Energy-Efficient%20Homes%20Are%20Much%20Less%20Likely%20to%20Go%2 0Into%20Default) _Start a New Topic_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNjU4cjYwBF9TAzk3… WQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNjQ3NTg5NjA-) _Messages in this topic_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/message/3393;_ylc=X3oDMTM1cWoxaHFy… 5MgRtc2dJZAMzMzkzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NDc1ODk2MAR0cGNJZAMzMzk z) (1) Recent Activity: _Visit Your Group_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMmw4bm43BF9TAzk3MzU5N… nRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNjQ3NTg5NjA-) (http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYmRiZmkyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxN… MA--) Switch to: _Text-Only_ (mailto:wvec-board-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional) , _Daily Digest_ (mailto:wvec-board-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest) • _Unsubscribe_ (mailto:wvec-board-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe) • _Terms of Use_ (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) • _Send us Feedback _ (mailto:ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback on the redesigned individual mail v1) . __,_._,___

1 0

Fwd: [Coal Volunteers List] Energy Efficiency Win in Ohio
by James Kotcon 31 Mar '13

31 Mar '13

If WV had Integrated Resource Planning, we could see these savings too. JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mary Anne Hitt <maryanne.hitt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:08 PM Subject: [Coal Volunteers List] A remarkable, historic week - thank you To: #Coal <coal-list(a)sierraclub.org>, coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org Hello Beyond Coal team, Big Energy Efficiency Win in Ohio ( http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/firstenergy_corp_ordere… ) This week, the Ohio Public Utilities Commission required utility FirstEnergy to include energy efficiency as part of the portfolio of energy sources they will put into the market for auction this year. The utility had ferociously resisted doing this because they only wanted to put their coal power on the market, to protect their aging, increasingly uncompetitive merchant coal plants. The Commission's action will save Ohio electric customers tens of millions of dollars and will also result in an estimated 300 MW of coal and gas within PJM -- the regional grid operator -- failing to clear in this year's auction, removing a critical revenue stream for these uneconomic plants and hastening their retirement. Perhaps most exciting, the Commission's action signals that they are likely to require something similar for Ohio's other utilities, which also participate in PJM. If so, we're likely to see something like 800-1,000 additional megawatts of cheap, carbon-free energy displacing dirty capacity within the PJM footprint. -- Mary Anne Hitt Director, Beyond Coal Campaign Sierra Club Twitter ( http://twitter.com/#!/maryannehitt ) | Blog ( http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/coal-director/ ) 304-876-7064 ( tel:304-876-7064 ) (w) | 540-239-0073 ( tel:540-239-0073 ) (c) www.beyondcoal.org -- To access the Beyond Coal Campaign Resource Portal, go to: https://sites.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/beyond-coal-resource-portal/ To sign up for this list, email becki.clayborn(a)sierraclub.org with the subject and message "SUBSCRIBE #coal-volunteer" --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "#Coal-Volunteers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coal-volunteers-list+unsubscribe(a)sierraclub.org ( mailto:coal-volunteers-list%2Bunsubscribe@sierraclub.org ). To post to this group, send email to coal-volunteers-list(a)sierraclub.org.

1 0

Fwd: Energy-Efficient Homes Are Much Less Likely to Go Into Default
by James Kotcon 31 Mar '13

31 Mar '13

Any idea what happened to the WV Energy Efficiency Building codes (87-CSR-4)? SB 251 went to Senate Judiciary, but was never taken up. Other Dept. of Commerce rules are in SB 250, but I can't find any reference to the energy building codes in the version on the Legislature's web page? Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Miller <jen.miller(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM Subject: Energy-Efficient Homes Are Much Less Likely to Go Into Default To: CONS-FRED(a)lists.sierraclub.org --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- New study by IMT that could be helpful to EE and building codes advocates! Energy-Efficient Homes Are Much Less Likely to Go Into Default Emily Badger ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/authors/emily-badger/ ) Mar 19, 2013 http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/03/energy-efficient-homes-are… Green builders and environmental advocates have long suspected it to be true that families living in energy-efficient homes might be less likely to get in trouble making their monthly mortgage payments. Their energy bills are lower and more predictable, without those wild swings between summer’s air conditioning costs and winter’s heating oil delivery. It also seems plausible that a homeowner who has weighed the up-front costs of energy improvements over the long-term payoff in lower utility bills might be equally conscientious in sizing up the risks of a 30-year mortgage. But there’s never been hard data to support any of this – let alone to help make the case that energy efficiency should be baked into how we underwrite mortgages. A new study released today ( http://www.imt.org/resources/detail/home-energy-efficiency-and-mortgage-ris… ) attempts for the first time to quantify the connection between energy efficiency and default risk. The research, funded by the Institute for Market Transformation ( http://www.imt.org/ ) and led by University of North Carolina researcher Nikhil Kaza, looked at 71,000 nationally representative owner-occupied single-family homes, 21,000 of them with Energy Star certifications ( http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cbd_guidebook.cbd_guidebook_apply_3 ). And it turns out the energy-efficient houses were 32 percent less likely to go into default when sized up against comparable homes without that rating. The study looked at loans that originated between 2002 and 2012, spanning the mortgage crisis. And it also found that the more energy-efficient the house, the lower the default risk. The researchers controlled for the size and age of the houses, neighborhood income, climate, home value, local unemployment rates, utility prices and borrower credit scores, among other variables. And so this is not a snapshot of pricey solar-powered homes compared to 1950s-era bungalows. “We’re going to similar homes in the same neighborhoods, with the same price, with the same credit scores of the borrowers,” says Robert Sahidi, a co-author of the report’s executive summary and the director of the Energy Efficiency Finance Policy program at IMT. “It’s not like were picking somebody making $100,000 and comparing it to somebody making $50,000 with a lower credit score and a lower home price.” The average sale price of the non-Energy Star homes in the study was $218,461 (for 2,183 square feet), and $221,919 for the Energy Star homes (for 2,283 square feet). The homes also came from fairly prosperous zipcodes with average income of about $73,000 and an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. On this map, the Energy-Star homes studied in the paper are noted in red and the control homes in blue (data was unavailable for states like California that aren’t represented): As best as the researchers can tell in their data, there’s little visible difference between the two groups that might explain their varying default rates, other than the efficiency of their homes. “There’s always going to be some portion of unobserved variables that might explain some of this result,” says Kaza, who’s a researcher with the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Community Capital ( http://www.ccc.unc.edu/ ). “But we tried as much as we can to make sure control and treatment groups are roughly similar.” He can’t say, though, exactly why the default rates are significantly different. Does the added cost of all those utility bills really add up to the difference between defaulting on a mortgage or staying on top of it? Or is there some other explanation at play – that, for instance, the owners of energy-efficient homes are happier with where they live and more likely to try hard to stay there? Green homes can also be healthier ones, meaning that the families who live there may have lower medical expenses tugging at the family budget from another direction. “But under certain circumstances,” says Cliff Majersik, the executive director of IMT, “you can act on data like this without knowing which portion comes from lower utility bills, which portion comes from healthier homes, which portion comes from happier homeowners.” This evidence is enough, he argues, to justify adjusting federal mortgage guidelines to take into account the fact that would-be owners of energy-efficient homes pose a lower risk of default. A similar argument has been made about “location-efficient” homes ( http://www.cnt.org/tcd/location-efficiency/lem ), where homeowners arguably have more money to spend on housing as a result of their lower transportation costs. One day, it’s possible that federal mortgage guidelines could pursue these two ideas in tandem, weighting the benefits of housing that comes with both lower utility and transportation costs – and, in the process, increasing market demand for it. Top image: Pupes ( http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-718555p1.html )/Shutterstock ( http://www.shutterstock.com/ ) Keywords: utility bills ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/utility-bills/ ), default ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/default/ ), Mortgages ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/mortgages/ ), energy efficiency ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/topics/energy-efficiency/ ) -- Jen Miller (614)563-9543 ( tel:%28614%29563-9543 ) Senior Campaign Representative for Energy Efficiency Sierra Club National Beyond Coal Campaign pst....My work is now national in scope, but I'm still based in Columbus, Ohio (the Eastern Time Zone)! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: 2 articles: U.S. Electricity Use on Wane / Efficiency in New England Saves $260 Million in Transmission Costs
by James Kotcon 31 Mar '13

31 Mar '13

The Energy Information Administration is projecting that electricity use in the U.S. will rise an average of just 0.6% a year for industrial users and 0.7% for households through 2040. Mon Power projects twice that rate of growth (1.4 % per year) as the justification for purchasing the Harrison plant. If there is surplus generation on the market, now is NOT the time to buy a power plant. See below. JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM Subject: 2 articles: U.S. Electricity Use on Wane / Efficiency in New England Saves $260 Million in Transmission Costs To: CONS-FRED(a)lists.sierraclub.org --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578217831371436110.h… U.S. Electricity Use on Wane January 2, 2013, 7:39 p.m. ET By REBECCA SMITH Americans are using more gadgets, televisions and air conditioners than ever before. But, oddly, their electricity use is barely growing, posing a daunting challenge for the nation's utilities. The Energy Information Administration is projecting that electricity use in the U.S. will rise an average of just 0.6% a year for industrial users and 0.7% for households through 2040. That's a far cry from the middle decades of the past century, when utilities could rely on electricity consumption growing by more than 8% a year. Even after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the growth in electricity demand averaged 2% to 4% annually. But those days may be long gone. In response to tepid demand, electricity production in the U.S. fell in 2008 and 2009, amid the recession, then ticked up slightly in 2010 before falling again in 2011. For decades, electricity use was viewed as a barometer of economic growth, but the link has become less clear cut in recent years, partly because of a big push to make major appliances and other products, such as compact fluorescent lightbulbs and high-efficiency motors, that use less electricity. The erosion of U.S. manufacturing also has contributed to the consumption slowdown. Industrial electricity use, which includes manufacturing, accounts for about a quarter of the nation's total. From 1998 to 2010, the electricity used for manufacturing fell 18% as industrial processes grew more efficient and companies produced fewer goods in the U.S. The slower pace of growth in electricity use may be helping the environment, since most of the nation's electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels. But it has power companies scrambling to trim spending or redirect capital investment, to improve their profits regardless of consumption patterns. Some companies, including Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. and Northeast Utilities, are pouring money into high-voltage transmission lines—superhighways for electricity—because federal regulators are allowing them to collect above-average returns from customers on those outlays to encourage new investment in the nation's aging power networks. Others are slashing spending, including Exelon Corp., which is cutting investment in nuclear-plant expansions by more than $1 billion and in renewable-energy projects by $1.3 billion from now until 2015 as it tries to avoid a credit downgrade. The Chicago-based company is even hinting at the previously unthinkable: cutting its dividend. "Even with all the actions we've taken, our balance sheet is stressed…and we have no other meaningful levers to pull," Chris Crane, Exelon's chief executive, told investors in November. He added that the company may be forced to lower its payout, which offers investors a return of 7%, based on the company's current stock price. Analysts expect it to reduce the return to closer to 5%. Many utilities with regulated and unregulated operations are redirecting spending to their regulated side, where regulators practically guarantee them a profit. PSEG plans to triple its investment in its fully regulated electricity-transmission business to $2.4 billion in 2014 from less than $866 million in 2008. Ralph Izzo, the company's CEO, recently told investors that he likes spending on power transmission, because "it's not dependent on [electricity] load growth." Part of his motivation is the return on equity of 11.7% to 12.9% set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. plans to spin off its power-transmission business into a new company that will join the Midwest Independent System Operator, a regional power-grid operator. Doing so would place it under FERC rules, and make the new company eligible for potentially higher profits. "They don't see any light at the end of the tunnel and are making adjustments," Daniel Krueger, managing director of power generation for the consulting firm Accenture in Chicago, said of the companies' shifting strategies. New England's biggest utility company, Northeast Utilities, expects to invest $3.5 billion of shareholder equity in its transmission business by 2017, versus about $2 billion today. It also has said it is planning to cut spending for operations and maintenance by 3% annually at utilities it owns in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire from 2013 to 2015. Nick Akins, CEO of American Electric Power Co., which has the nation's biggest high-voltage transmission network, said he is focused on projects that can be built quickly, mostly connecting utilities it owns in 13 states. Mr. Akins said he wants to avoid the bruising battles that delayed or doomed big projects in the past, like the 275-mile Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline project from West Virginia to Maryland. AEP and partner FirstEnergy Corp. dropped development plans for the complex project in 2011. "Sometimes, we were just dreaming" that the companies could get enormous power lines built across multiple states, Mr. Akins said. He said AEP now is focusing on shorter projects blessed by federal regulators that eliminate grid bottlenecks. "It's where you want to put your money," he said. Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith(a)wsj.com Copyright ©2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Back to top http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/27/energy-efficiency-saves-new-england-260… Energy Efficiency Saves New England $260 Million In Transmission Costs December 27, 2012 Silvio Marcacci Energy efficiency represents the biggest potential to cut consumer costs and reduce power demand – one report has found America is just 43.8% efficient. While individual projects show small results, when they accumulate across a regional grid, efficiency savings add up quickly, as New England’s grid operator recently discovered. State and private programs designed to reduce consumer energy demand have recently cut the need for $260 million in planned transmission system upgrades across the six states within the ISO-New England (ISO-NE) region. The announcement was made during ISO-NE’s energy-efficiency forecast, the first multi-state outlook in the U.S. Big Investments = Big Energy Savings ISO-NE is one of the nation’s largest grid operators, managing electricity supply and demand for 14 million people in 6.5 million households and businesses across 8,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and 350 generators. The system has more than 32,000 MW of capacity, including more than 2,000 MW of demand response resources. Roughly $1.2 billion was spent across the ISO-NE region from 2008-2011, resulting in a total reduction of 3,502 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in electricity use. The average state reduced electricity consumption 876 GWh annually, with total summer peak demand savings of 514 megawatts (MW). The overall effects of these savings are hard to ignore. Regional peak demand is only forecast to grow .9 percent from 2012–2021 (roughly 2/3 the previous estimate), with a flat annual growth in energy consumption over the same period, and winter peak demand actually projected to decline nearly .5 percent. Lower Demand Leads To Lower Infrastructure Costs In the long term, this consumption decline will have a major impact. >From 2015–2012, ISO-NE estimates annual savings of 1,343 GWh from energy efficiency — roughly the same amount of electricity used by 2 million average homes in the region. New England will spend an estimated $5.7 billion on energy efficiency program over the same time period, according to the report. As a result, ISO-NE was able to lower long-term planning needs for the system’s grid beyond 2020. “Revised analysis shows that the region can actually defer 10 transmission upgrades that earlier studies showed were needed to ensure system reliability,” said Stephen Rourke, vice president for system planning. “By deferring these upgrades, the region will save an estimated $260 million.” Energy efficiency programs across the region were comprised of relatively simple steps, like encouraging consumers to swap out incandescent light bulbs for efficient lighting like CFLs or LEDs, upgrade HVAC systems and building insulation, purchase Energy Star appliances, or integrate more efficient industrial processes and motors. Diverse Funding Streams Foot the Bill Funding for the 125 different individual programs has come from four main sources: state-designated funding, revenue from the system’s Forward Capacity Market (long-term capacity sales), a designated “systems benefits charge” on ratepayer bills, and revenue from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Energy efficiency programs have been the largest recipients of RGGI investments by far, garnering 66 percent of all carbon auction revenue to date, according to the RGGI 2011 Investment Report. Given all this, it’s no surprise New England leads the U.S. in the energy efficiency economy, with Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all listed in the annual ranking of the top ten most energy efficient states. Image Credits: electricity demand chart via ISO on Background presentation About Silvio Marcacci Silvio is Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy public relations company based in Washington, D.C. © Cleantechnica 2012 Back to top _______________________________________________ Pa-transmission mailing list Pa-transmission(a)lists.conserveland.org http://lists.conserveland.org/mailman/listinfo/pa-transmission To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.conserveland.org/mailman/listinfo/pa-transmission or email info(a)conserveland.org with the subject line UNSUBSCRIBE - TRANSMISSION LISTSERV. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-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/

2 1

Fwd: Environment Program - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
by James Kotcon 28 Mar '13

28 Mar '13

Something for our EE campaign? Or maybe WVEC? JBK >>> Todd Walters 3/28/2013 10:08 AM >>> Sponsor: Kresge Foundation SYNOPSIS: The sponsor's goal is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by speeding the adoption of energy efficiency and renewable energy. They award support to organizations whose work aligns closely with their strategies and holds strong promise to bring about positive change and organizations that work nationally, across multiple states or at the regional or statewide level. The majority of grants and program-related investments are made within the United States. Deadline(s): Established Date: 04/16/2010 Follow-Up Date: 04/01/2014 Review Date: 03/27/2013 Contact: Address: 3215 West Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084 U.S.A. E-mail: Web Site: http://www.kresge.org/programs/environment Program URL: http://www.kresge.org/programs/environment/energy-efficiency-and-renewable-… Tel: 248-643-9630 Fax: Deadline Ind: Receipt Deadline Open: Yes *See Restrictions for further information. DEADLINE NOTE The Environment Program primarily accepts grant requests by invitation. However, if your organization’s work is consistent with the program goals, you may submit a preliminary application as a means of letting Environment Program staff learn more about your activities. Award Type(s): General Project Citizenship/Country of Applying Institution: Any/No Restrictions Locations Tenable: Canadian Institution U.S.A. Institution (including U.S. Territories) Appl Type(s): Non-Profit State/Local Agencies Tax-exempt Target Group(s): NONE Funding Limit: $0 NOT PROV Duration: 0 Indirect Costs: Unspecified Cost Sharing: No Sponsor Type: NONE Geo. Restricted: NO RESTRICTIONS CFDA#: OBJECTIVES: Investments focus on three strategies: Promoting policy reform -- the sponsor supports organizations seeking to promote energy-efficiency resource standards, as well as standards for appliance and equipment efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, the sponsor funds work on policies that encourage utility investment in energy-efficiency programs and transmission policy reform for the Midwest and at a federal level. The aim is the implementation of programs and policies that support energy efficiency and renewable energy as contributors to meeting demand. Bringing energy-efficiency retrofits to scale -- the sponsor seeks to demonstrate through grants and program-related investments that energy-efficiency retrofits can be brought to scale by addressing barriers such as financing, performance measurement and disclosure, marketing and behavior. Supporting next-generation approaches -- the sponsor helps those working to push the bounds of what is considered possible and practical for efficiency improvements in the built environment, and support practices that drive innovation in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy. ELIGIBILITY Eligible applicants include U.S.-based 501(c)(3) organizations and their Canadian equivalents, as well as government entities. The sponsor will not support projects outside of North America. Todd Walters Grants Specialist Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design West Virginia University 1005B Agricultural Sciences Building P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506-6108 Phone: 304-293-2404 Fax: 304-293-3740 http://www.davis.wvu.edu/

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Renewable energy cost: Setting the record straight
by John Christensen 22 Mar '13

22 Mar '13

1 0

Fwd: Renewable energy cost: Setting the record straight
by Paul Wilson 22 Mar '13

22 Mar '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: UCS Science Network <sciencenetwork(a)ucsusa.org> Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:02 PM Subject: Renewable energy cost: Setting the record straight To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com [image: UCS Science Network] *Webinar on April 3* Join UCS energy experts as we explore effective ways to respond to misinformation about the cost of renewable energy. *Register Today* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=i0Z7lEsJsRQynNWEtX9mqw> Related Links Driving Renewable Energy: Policies That Matter<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=GSY0sKlgJBuLiU2PA2QbQQ> State Renewable Electricity Standards: A Cornerstone in America's Clean Energy Transition <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=8SO0dbXadgkSqpFeSl9x6A> Misinformation about Renewable Energy: Coming to Your State?<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Xj8DzA2sVem931giFt8V1Q> Tell A Colleague Please encourage your colleagues to sign up<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Km26K3WpWLxp8ukvHiwkgQ>and help increase our effectiveness in creating a healthy environment and a safer world. CLICK HERE<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=7bHe6z2_UnMeeyaoqe7oTw> . WEBINAR INVITATION Setting the Record Straight on Renewable Energy Cost Dear Paul, *Fact: Renewable energy is providing affordable electricity across the country right now. And it is getting even cheaper.* Unfortunately, public understanding of the role renewables now play in supplying clean, affordable, and reliable electricity to millions of households is muddled by outdated perceptions and misleading claims at the center of misinformation campaigns funded by fossil fuel interests. We invite you to join the Union of Concerned Scientists for a webinar exploring how you can use your expertise to effectively respond to misinformation about renewable energy cost. *Setting the Record Straight on Renewable Energy Cost<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=C_cTt_sNckJSEjalnNp85w> * *Date:* Wednesday, April 3 *Time:* 3:00-4:00 p.m. (EDT) *Register for the Webinar Today<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=PYhio0DEUmN6xe4PeWRCbw> * Featuring the following UCS staff: - *Jeff Deyette*, assistant director of energy research and senior energy analyst in the Climate & Energy Program, will examine a series of misleading studies funded by the Koch brothers at the center of a misinformation campaign targeting renewable energy requirements in more than a dozen states; - *Laura Wisland*, senior energy analyst, will explore common misperceptions about renewable energy costs, such as the claim that renewables cost significantly more than coal, natural gas, or nuclear power; and - *David Anderson*, outreach coordinator, will highlight the important role you can play in setting the record straight. Please join us as we examine some of the top misconceptions about renewable energy cost and highlight best practices for communicating the facts. Sincerely, [image: David Anderson] David Anderson Outreach Coordinator Climate & Energy Program Union of Concerned Scientists** * * The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely. <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=_ZtIl5LRrI2VuG6AIhZxpw> Union of Concerned Scientists 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Phone: 800-666-8276<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=hUYKHXNLjeLt4QzVtYoHdQ> Fax: 617-864-9405 <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=gZ1WvNVkBNTqIK0Zyj12Cw> *ucsaction(a)ucsusa.org* <ucsaction(a)ucsusa.org> *www.ucsusa.org* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=jmrNY18KTGLaKQ8Ws-FpDg> *About UCS* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=R3nQpMLUvgiU1e0Pm6tGNQ> | *Take Action* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=NAsSOXaf8I5kosTCqekelA> | *Donate * <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Oym8k6iskfIBAvZq0eDekQ> | *Contact Us*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=XuudAVin8pXtCdTJG4OsCw>| *Privacy Policy* <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Nnecw5-FNoS6ad08L3Wilg>| *Unsubscribe*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/CO?i=tSZs4PY5I2ByKapE25f03v50RFgBvEfG&cid=178…>| *Update Your Profile*<http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=is-h6g2lTDYFSiiu8obWKQ> © Union of Concerned Scientists. All rights reserved. [image: powered by CONVIO] <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=2tq-sGnmDAFAnGO2CdjKRA> nonprofit software <http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ey4fL3ICxIG5J2DZOxhq5Q> -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: URGENT: Tell Senators-- Don't cut environmental regulations on coal
by Paul Wilson 22 Mar '13

22 Mar '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Dow <ddow420(a)comcast.net> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:15 AM Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Tell Senators-- Don't cut environmental regulations on coal To: "patachek3(a)gmail.com Gmail" <patachek3(a)gmail.com>, "pam394(a)aol.comPolloni" < Pam394(a)aol.com>, Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> fyi Begin forwarded message: *From: *"Marice Keever, Friends of the Earth" <foe(a)foe.org> *Date: *March 22, 2013 9:50:27 AM EDT * * [image: http://www.foe.org] [image: Donate to Friend of the Earth]<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9qkRysaNcDw4JKcZvZi0…> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=R6H9OvNirhrkBVPtutY4…><http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hsrVuJZec9Tl2s3DCgvs…><http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qjJOSG%2FDgSojRIczXJ…><http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1qXoJ7ckBwi4gLS4CJ7l…> *Dear David,* *Don't let Big Coal and their allies in Congress eliminate environmental protections on coal exports.*<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kKiNqdgZdw2dY%2Fv9NV…> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=v6Dsi32PELhokneLOVU2…> * Tell your Senators to vote NO on amendment 184!<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nmEQUQnS2sbzqCebeE4t…> * Big Coal and its allies are attempting to sneak through a last-minute budget amendment to stop federal agencies from limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of exported coal and other fuels. Right now agencies are legally bound to consider the health and climate impacts of greenhouse gases when reviewing export proposals -- including coal. But under Senator Barrasso's (R-WY) amendment (#184), agencies would be barred from considering environmental impacts from exporting coal or other fossil fuels. If this amendment passes there will be nothing to stop Big Coal from sending millions of tons of U.S. coal to be burned in China. And we'll all pay the climate and health consequences. *This amendment will come up for a vote in the next 24 hours. Please act right now -- use the form below tell your Senators to vote NO on Amendment 184!*<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=i66iluTue%2FQdkJ17pr…> Here’s more background on the issue: - Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an agency that issues a permit for a major project involving the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels has to consider the impacts of burning those fuels on the health and well-being of Americans, regardless of whether those fuels are burned in the U.S. or whether they are exported and burned somewhere else in the world - When it comes to greenhouse gases, the impacts on Americans are exactly the same wherever the fuel is burned, because carbon pollution spreads globally and respects no boundaries. - But under this new amendment the agencies would be forced to ignore the impacts on Americans, just because the fuels were exported. - All this does is protect the profits of the big corporations that export fossil fuels, at the expense of the health and well-being of the American people. *Please act now and tell your Senators to vote NO.<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=euz5qKHPVhAz%2Fy2qcx…> * Thank you for speaking up! *Marcie Keever, and all of us at Friends of the Earth* Contact us Friends of the Earth U.S. Washington DC Berkeley CA 1-877-843-8687 Contact us »<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Gox9324MeL%2BAJjJAor…> Email preferences Click here to unsubscribe »<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gragEFkiBJuaTVbv6u7p…> View email in web browser »<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nqsHNlcWoCFUE5LNxVqW…> Learn more www.foe.org/news »<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=dG%2B3g8xvsT9PNk%2Fe…> www.foe.org/about-us »<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vEe0ZoLr0QvYOodlt6YB…> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ygUFdeO3EGpycmd6hEQp…> [image: Follow Friends of the Earth on Facebook]<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pt4JdFkYyxnOeEKlBjtj…> [image: Follow Friends of the Earth on Twitter]<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=S3XQqrvtSgyEu6khJotN…> [image: View photos from Friends of the Earth on Flickr]<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9K8H53YxcCEMPCD%2BkB…> [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email> **** -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Coal to challenge oil's dominance by 2017, says IEA | EurActiv
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/coal-challenge-oils-dominance-20-news-516748…

1 0

CO2 graphics
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 17 Mar '13

17 Mar '13

http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/information-is-beautiful-co2-graph…

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC March 2013