EC August 2016

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

6 participants
7 discussions

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Sierra Club position on carbon fee and dividend proposal to put a price on carbon?
by James Kotcon via EC 23 Aug '16

23 Aug '16

This is from a thread on the Sierra Club's FRED list that asks whether we support a carbon tax. Ned Ford is one of the most informed experts on energy that I know in the Club. Below he discusses why a carbon tax proposals are a disruption and will not happen fast enough. Enjoy. JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)fuse.net> Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Sierra Club position on carbon fee and dividend proposal to put a price on carbon? To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org I have spent many years trying to explain why carbon taxes are not going to be a big part of the picture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM is about disruptive technology and it disrupts my own thinking even though I have been following most of the trends he speaks about for many years. In short we don't need carbon taxes because the technologies are producing the price differential more effectively than a tax could. That flies in the face of the often-repeated claim that carbon taxes are more efficient or better than other strategies. What those people usually mean is that carbon taxes are better than command and control. We haven't used command and control for the major pollutants for several decades, so it's a false premise. What carbon tax advocates neglect is the huge differential between the effect of a price on carbon on coal, and the same price's impact on petroleum or natural gas. We seriously could use a natural gas or petroleum tax. But it would have to be absurdly large as a tax on carbon, compared to the price needed to end coal. About ten times larger. It would be easy enough to separate the fuels and have different tax rates, but the discussion never gets that far. The fact of the matter is that carbon reductions are happening because efficiency and wind and solar are cheaper. The more we use those three technologies to address coal and natural gas generation, the lower the prices and the faster the process. We are at a point today where an EV costs a third or less than a gasoline car to drive any distance, and the price differential will get greater. So we need a lot more clean electricity than the nation is presently expecting to need, if just replacing the current fuel mix (including the nuclear plants that can't run forever) is the target. About 40% more total electricity by 2040. If you view the link above you will understand how narrowly I'm talking about the coming changes. Disruptive energy changes affect everything we do. But the most important thing we can do is to concentrate on direct state level activism to remove obstructionists from the path of efficiency, wind and solar. Utility scale solar must come before distributed solar, even though in ten years we may see the order of priorities change to solar, wind and efficiency. If that happens, as Mr. Seba says, it won't be purely economic. Or at least it won't be purely economic as we think about it because people will be factoring in their convenience as a "cost" where no dollars are involved. This means we probably won't ever become truly efficient. But at the same time, efficiency in some form is driving every single one of the technological disruptions he identifies and many more that he doesn't. I hope the Sierra Club ignores carbon taxes. Even if the Republicans are demolished in ten weeks we can use the opportunity far better to remove barriers to efficiency and to speed development of cost-effective wind and solar than to spend another decade trying to get a tax package into position that really works. - Ned On 8/22/2016 12:44 PM, Carolyn Amparan wrote: Hello, Does anyone know the Sierra Club's position on the Citizen Climate's Lobby carbon fee and dividend proposal? If so, what is the status on the specific proposal and a price on carbon in general? I found there was a resolution considered in 2013 but have not found anything more current on the national website. Thanks, Carolyn * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)lists.sierraclub.org <CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@lists.sierraclub.org?subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS&body=SIGNOFF%20CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS>, or visit Listserv online <http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?SUBED1=CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAI…>. For Listserv basics, technical tips, and commnity guidelines, check out our General FAQ <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq>. Listserv content is subject to the Sierra Club's Email List Policy <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/policy> and Terms and Conditions <http://www.sierraclub.org/terms>. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)lists.sierraclub.org <CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@lists.sierraclub.org?subject=Unsubscribe+from+CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS&body=SIGNOFF+CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS>, or visit Listserv online <http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?SUBED1=CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAI…>. For Listserv basics, technical tips, and commnity guidelines, check out our General FAQ <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq>. Listserv content is subject to the Sierra Club's Email List Policy <http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/policy> and Terms and Conditions <http://www.sierraclub.org/terms>.

1 0

Re: [EC] Arcadia Power, 18 months in
by Yarnell, Karen 16 Aug '16

16 Aug '16

I’ve been getting offers from this company. Does anyone recommend switching to them? What percentage of your power usage? From: Jessica Dell [mailto:customercare@arcadiapower.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:51 AM To: Yarnell, Karen Subject: Arcadia Power, 18 months in [Arcadia Power] Our customers love us Hey Karen! I thought you may want to hear from some of our customers about their experience with Arcadia Power: “Arcadia Power has been one of the easiest, most effective, and affordable ways we’ve found to fight climate change. We have automated payments set up, so we don’t have to think about it." -Dave Berlin, customer since December 2014 “For people concerned about our children’s future - it has never been so easy to do so much good.” -Kristy Bibb, customer since August 2014 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/arcadiapowerprod/assets/jointhemtoday_button_helve…]<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> Also, in case you haven't seen our video, watch it here<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…>. If you have questions about signing up email or call us at (866)-526-0083. Thank you, Jessica “Inside the Outlet” Blog<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> | Twitter<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> | Facebook<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…> | Unsubscribe<http://links.arcadiapower.com/wf/click?upn=ucdzNujisweIYeHjVFO0JblzVL7mLRj2…>

3 2

Court backs Obama’s climate change accounting
by James Kotcon 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

This is an obscure but incredibly important court victory, supporting DOE calculations of a "Social Cost of Carbon". JBK "...In a unanimous decision<http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/…> late Monday, the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected an industry-backed request to overturn a 2014 rule that set energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators. In doing so, the court specifically backed the so-called social cost of carbon, President Obama’s administration-wide estimate of the costs per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere — currently $36...." Full story at: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290859-court-backs-obamas-clim…

1 0

This is what I call a "Happy Problem"
by James Kotcon 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

Here is the rebuttal to those who claim renewable energy is too unreliable and too expensive and will never provide a significant share of our electricity. JBK >>>>> Texas is expecting 21,000 MW of wind-generated electricity, and their transmission grid is only built to handle 18,500. To put that in context, a typical coal plant handles 600 MW. That might mean that turbines will have to rest idle at times. This isn't the first time or place for this to happen. The UK has also struggled with the challenge of surplus power<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/uk-will-have-too-much-electricit…>, and energy surpluses in Chile-which have resulted in straight-up <http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21228/chile-solar-energy-surplu…> free power<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21228/chile-solar-energy-surplu…>-are starting to have negative effects on the energy industry. It's not the worst problem to have, but it's still a problem. Full story at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-d… [http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/32/1024x512/landscape-1470674049-gettyimages-…]<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-d…> Texas Is Drowning in Wind Energy<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-d…> www.popularmechanics.com Yes, you can have too much of a good thing.

1 0

FirstEnergy loses $1.1B, may sell Pleasants plant to MonPower
by James Kotcon 07 Aug '16

07 Aug '16

This is a fairly lengthy article, but the last sentence of the excerpt below says it all. Translation: "Screw the rate payer!" Full story at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-business/20160805/firstenergy-loses-11b-m… After announcing a quarterly loss of $1.1 billion<https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031296/000103129616000101/ex991fe-…> because of the future closures of two uncompetitive coal-fired power plants in Ohio, FirstEnergy says it will seek to "de-risk" by pushing plants onto electricity customers in states like West Virginia. Charles Jones, CEO of FirstEnergy, the parent company of MonPower and Potomac Edison, announced in an earnings call <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3005292-First-Energy-Earnings-Call-…> on July 29 that the coal-heavy utility would seek to remove itself completely from the competitive energy business and, in the meantime, would try to offload plants to regulated markets, where the company is guaranteed a profit. "Longer-term, we do not believe competitive generation is a good fit for FirstEnergy and we are focused on regulated operations," Jones said. "We cannot put investors and our company at risk." Jim Kotcon

3 3

Hands up again, West Virginia ratepayers.
by frank young 06 Aug '16

06 Aug '16

Is this an admission that the "free market" does not work in the traditional electric power utility model? "Charles Jones, CEO of FirstEnergy, the parent company of MonPower and Potomac Edison, announced in an earnings call on July 29 that the coal-heavy utility would seek to remove itself completely from the competitive energy business and, in the meantime, would try to offload plants to regulated markets, where the company is guaranteed a profit." http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/?pageid=d33b9dcb-f8ef-4800-ab20-9 e327ee0ba1b FirstEnergy loses $1.1B 06 Aug 2016 - Charleston Gazette Mail By Andrew Brown Staff writer Firm eyes selling Pleasants plant to MonPower in 'de-risk' move After announcing a quarterlyhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031296/000103129616000101/ ex991fe-06302016.htm <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">loss of $1.1 billion because of the future closures of two uncompetitive coal-fired power plants in Ohio, FirstEnergy says it will seek to "de-risk" by pushing plants onto electricity customers in states like West Virginia. Charles Jones, CEO of FirstEnergy, the parent company of MonPower and Potomac Edison,https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3005292-First-Energy-Earnings -Call-Q2-2016.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">announced in an earnings call on July 29 that the coal-heavy utility would seek to remove itself completely from the competitive energy business and, in the meantime, would try to offload plants to regulated markets, where the company is guaranteed a profit. "Longer-term, we do not believe competitive generation is a good fit for FirstEnergy and we are focused on regulated operations," Jones said. "We cannot put investors and our company at risk." West Virginia likely will play a big part in that corporate strategy. Jones made it clear inhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2841966-First-Energy-First-Quarter -2016-Earnings-Call.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">another earnings call earlier this year that the Akron-based business wantshttp://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20160312/GZ01/160319819 <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> "> to sell the Pleasants power plant, north of Parkersburg, to its subsidiary companies in West Virginia. The proposed transfer of that coal-fired plant, which would shift the risk of the 36-year-old generating station off of investors and onto electricity customers in the northern half of the state, has already prompted opposition from groups like the Sierra Club, West Virginia Citizen Action Group and the state government's Consumer Advocate Division. Those groups took issue with the company's http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID =441858 <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> &NotType=%27WebDocket%27">integrated resource plan - a 15-year energy and demand forecast - that was presented to the West Virginia Public Service Commission earlier this year. The plan had reported that an existing coal-fired power plant (now known to be Pleasants) would be the cheapest generating option for customers and that electricity demand for MonPower and Potomac Edison was expected to increase by 2.2 percent, largely because of the natural gas industry in the state. Late this week, the Consumer Advocate Division and the https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3006112-PSC-Staff-and-CAD-Ask-for-Fi rstEnergy-RFP.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">PSC's staff called on FirstEnergy to file a formal request for proposal that would require the company to compare other energy sources, including new or existing wind, solar and natural-gas plants. "The staff and CAD believes that these companies, especially in light of the inexorable collapse of the coal industry driven primarily by the availability of cheaper and more plentiful natural gas, continue to rely on acquisition practices that are not in the best interests of the consuming public and the economy of the state," their lawyers said. Results from the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that manages the energy market for 13 states, including West Virginia, seem to contradict the company's findings in its resource plan, too. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842771-PJM-Market-Report-2015.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">Market results show that, between 2014 and 2015, regional electricity sales from coal-fired power plants dropped by 17.8 percent in the PJM. Gas-fired power plants sold 28.4 percent more in 2015 than they did the year before, and evenhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842688-PJM-Capacity-Auction-Res ults-2019-2020.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">more efficient gas-fired plants are set to come online in the coming years. The groups opposed to the transfer of Pleasants have argued that the sale of the plant would be a corporate bailout for the company's investors, at the expense of West Virginia electricity customers. The https://www.firstenergycorp.com/newsroom/news_releases/firstenergy-to-deacti vate-units-at-two-ohio-power-plants-.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">closure of the company's two plants in Ohio resulted inhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031296/000103129616000095/ex991le ttertoinvestmentcom.htm <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">$1.5 billion in charges and contract termination fees, or $2.99 per investment share. As a result, three of FirstEnergy's subsidiaries have been put on a credit watch by the ratings agency Standard and Poor's. Those subsidiaries soonhttps://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Downgrades-FirstEnergy-Solutions- Corp-and-Allegheny-Energy-Supply-Co--PR_352838 <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">could be downgraded to a "non-investment grade" rating. Comments by FirstEnergy's executives also call into question whether MonPower and Potomac Edison's demand for electricity is actually going to increase by 2.2 percent in the coming years. The company has cited that forecast demand as the reason it needs to purchase a plant the size of Pleasants. In the conference call, FirstEnergy officials said electricity demand among all of its affiliates had actually dropped by 2.7 percent in the past four months. The company had a similar decline in the first four months of 2016, and Jones described the company's future outlook for electricity demand as "anemic." James Pearson, FirstEnergy's executive vice president and chief financial officer, said any increase in electricity demand from the natural-gas industry had been offset by industrial declines in the steel and coal industries. He said energy efficiency measures - which have lagged behind in West Virginia - also were reducing residential demand in FirstEnergy's service territories. During the conference call, one investment analyst led off a testy question by saying it was obvious from Jones' tone that "frustration has gone to peak level" at FirstEnergy. Jones responded by downplaying the difficulties the market-based portion of the company is facing, and went on to lament the dipping regional energy prices that are https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842790-Capacity-Changes-in-PJM.html <http://mynewsonthego.com/charleston/EPaper/%3Ca%20href=> ">largely being driven by new natural-gas turbines. "Is it frustrating that we're shutting down tens of thousands of megawatts of generation in our country that's got life left in it because of the way this market is working?" Jones said. "That is very frustrating to me." Reach Andrew Brown at andrew.brown(a)wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-4814 or follow @Andy_Ed_Brown on Twitter.

1 0

Fw: [WV Sierra Club Energy Efficiency Leaders] a bit dated but wanted to share this to the...
by James Kotcon 05 Aug '16

05 Aug '16

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC August 2016