Jeff
There are several changes that I would
recommend.
First, thanks to WVU and several other independent
medical research organizations, there is more than ample scientific evidence
that the financial and social impact on health care, including
premature death, loss of productivity and inability to work due to diseases like
heart disease, cancers, and asthma caused by pollution from coal fired
power plants are significant. But this report does not appear take
into consideration these "legacy" costs when evaluating the economic
comparatives of coal to renewable energy.
As one who has a fiduciary responsibility to they State
and Legislature for all our positions as a member of the PEA, I must go on
record demanding that the true cost be identified in any economic
analysis. As you know from my often offered, and to some,
an irritating report, the Province of Ontario has in their annual
Provincial Budget BOTH the generation/distribution of electric power from
several generating methods, and the Province wide universal health care plan
known as OHIP. The Provincial Government completed several years ago a
detailed study to determine the true cost of coal fired power and included the
cost of health care directly attributed to pollution from their coal fired power
plants. Their 2 year study led them to conclude that renewable energy is
less costly when the total cost is honestly added up, so they are on track to
shut down ALL of their coal fired power plants by 2012. While the
economics of BOTH power generation/distribution and health care are undoubtedly
different between Ontario and West Virginia, we must, in all honest to the State
Legislature, report the true cost of coal as it is understood today...and not by
living in the past.
Secondly, I note the Coal Association is asked for input
data, but what about asking renewable energy industry sources, like WV Wind
Working Group, environmental organizations like, but not limited to,
the WV Chapter and National Sierra Club, OPEC, WV Environmental
Council, and health care professionals who deal with these health impacts on a
daily basis. Solar Energy, both photovoltaic and concentrated solar power
technologies in particular, have been coming down in total costs
significantly, some industry literature reporting 50% drop in the last year for
some systems. Qualified industry sources should be consulted and asked to
supply the current economics of these rapidly growing energy
technologies.
Third, the fact that the power industry has stated that
they do not need to construct any renewable energy systems to me illustrates the
illusion of this Alternative Energy Standard. No other jurisdiction that I
am aware of has such a phony approach...we need a clean renewable energy
standard period...20% by 2020.
And the reason for that is that since the original
standard was written, climatology scientists around the world have observed the
impacts of climate change, and have determined that their original models for
predicting the rise of temperature and impacts of climate change were too
conservative. They clearly are warning that we are moving much more
rapidly to a crisis level of GHG emissions. As the Durban South Africa
meeting has just concluded and illustrates, the world IS coming together to
address climate change, and we must too.
But the opportunities for job creation are the plus side
of solving this crisis, hence our State Energy Plan must be more aggressive in
cutting GHG emissions that will create jobs in doing so. There are
numerous studies supporting this statement, and we are foolish to ignore the
global trends...as we do so at our economic peril.
Finally, there should be a far more aggressive incentive
program for net metering and distributed power.
Respectfully
Allan Tweddle
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 8:57 AM
Subject: FW: DRassessment12 16 11.doc
Gentlemen
Last
Monday (12/12) you were advised of the Public Service Commission and
Division of Energy/ Public Energy Authority role in preparing a
report on West Virginia’s Alternative and Renewable
Portfolio.
In
that email I shared with you information we provided to the PSC
for use in preparation of the preliminary report.
The
preliminary report is to be submitted by the PSC by January 1 while the
final report is due July 1, 2012.
Attached
is the draft preliminary report. Would appreciate your review and comments if
any on this by Wednesday, December 21.
Please
feel free to contact me with questions. Jeff
From: Haden, Amy
[mailto:AHaden@psc.state.wv.us]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4:04
PM
To: Herholdt, Jeff F; Hitt, Richard
Subject:
DRassessment12 16 11.doc
Attached is a draft of the assessment. Note that parts of the text are
highlighted with notes for your review and editing. At 8-9, the section of
the economic impact of the Act on coal and coal mining was simplified. The
discussion of the displacement analysis did not appear to be responsive to the
Q. about the impact on coal and coal mining and it was a little difficult
to follow. After looking at it, Rick and I thought it might be better to
leave it out with some language added about following up with more information
in future Assessments.
The copy will be revised for the table of contents pages, etc. after we finish
the draft stage. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.