You might find some of this useful.

JBK

>>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell@sierraclub.org> 9/3/2009 7:50 PM >>>
--------------------------- cc:Mail Users-----------------------------
** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing **
----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS
1. Learn about the "Smart Grid"
2. N. Carolina debates Wind on mountain ridges
3. Recycling Compact Fluorescent Bulbs -- Maine

1. Is it smarter than a 5th grader?

Ivy Main, a volunteer leader in Virginia, unearthed the below-noted
reports. Completely TMI, but still you might share them with your Energy
Committee and encourage them to
poke around a bit for some basic education. The states' role is ensuring
that *renewable* energy can get on the grid through strong state
interconnection standards.

Both the Department Of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) issued reports this summer on the nation's energy
grid.
The DOE report is "Smart Grid System Report," at
http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/SGSRMain_090707_lowres.pdf
contains a good discussion of the status of the smart grid. It also
explains the relevance of interconnection standards to the smart grid
and describes the overlapping federal/state jurisdiction in this area,
making it clear that a lot of states are lagging on adopting acceptable
interconnection standards. (See the section starting on page 20.)
The FERC document, at
http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2009/071609/E-3.pdf
announces a policy to promote and set standards for transmission system
upgrades. FERC claims it has authority to set standards for transmission,
but it is apparently not saying these are mandatory.

3. The wind blows where it chooses . . .

The North Carolina State Legislature spent some time this past session
talking about wind as well as contributing to it. The legislation before
them was
S 1068, which can be found at
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1068v3.pdf

Molly Diggins says about the bill, "North Carolina's greatest wind
resources are off-shore, but there are also commercially viable resources
in the mountains and on the coast (sounds). The state currently has no
commercial wind and also lacks and environmental permitting process. The
bill before the legislature is well-thought out and well-crafted. It is
written in two sections--wind on the coast and wind in the mountains.

Other Atlantic coastal states may want to review the bill thoughtfully.

And here's the view of the "Charlotte Observer" Editorial Board from Aug.
08, 2009:

Senate right to block ridgetop wind farms
Should North Carolina allow huge wind turbines on its mountain ridges to
help meet future energy needs? We don't think so. But it also ought not
short-circuit the potential for wind power projects in other mountain areas
that may not spoil the views millions of Americans revere.
We start with this proposition: One of the wisest things the legislature
did in the 1980s is to adopt the mountain ridge law. It bans certain
development on ridgetops in Western North Carolina to prevent the spoilage
of the state's magnificent vistas. Among the things prohibited are tall
condo projects and other structures that alter the viewscape. It's a good
law.
But controversy has risen over whether its provisions halt development of
large wind turbine farms that, under a new sustainable energy law lawmakers
adopted a few years ago, would help provide alternative power sources. The
goal is to produce 12.5 percent of the state's energy requirements by 2021
with renewable sources such as solar and wind. To meet that goal, many
environmentalists argue, the state must use available resources, including
the Western N.C. winds that blow most steadily along ridgetops.
We don't believe mountaintops are an appropriate place to put wind farms,
collections of dozens of wind turbines that can tower up to four hundred
feet high, measured from their base to the tips of their rotors. We believe
the best spot is along parts of North Carolina's windswept coastline,
either offshore or in its more protected sounds. In many of those areas,
wind farms could be constructed that do not substantially mar the view and
which could take advantage of more reliable winds than many mountain areas.
We think Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, D-Dare, has this one
right: The coast would be ideal for concentrations of wind farms that could
produce significant amounts of electricity. He has talked with Duke Energy
about such a possibility in our offshore areas, he says.
That's why we like several things about a bill the Senate passed 45-1
Thursday. It sets up a careful process for assessing and issuing permits
for coastal area wind farms. And it reasserts the value of the mountain
ridgetop law by banning commercial windmill operations. It does allow
smaller windmills for residential use.
But we'd like to see legislators find a way to encourage the development
of emerging wind turbine technology that might be appropriate for some
Western N.C. slopes. That includes devices that use much less intrusive
turbines than the three-rotor turbines found on many Western United States
and European wind farms, for example.
There may not be time left in the current legislative session for the
House to make suitable revisions to the Senate bill that would allow
research and development of mountain wind projects to go forward. But
legislators should put their minds to finding a way, before they reconvene
next year, to develop appropriate wind energy projects in Western N.C. that
do not threaten the very landscape that North Carolinians hold so dear.

3. The Brightest Bulb

Maine's LD 973 provides a free and easy way for consumers to recycle
compact fluorescent bulbs and sets a standard for the amount of mercury
that can be contained in them.

Bill text:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chappdfs/PUBLIC272.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC@osenergy.org
http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec