Readers of Raising Kaine have already heard what a bad deal the Dominion Virginia Power bill is for consumers, the environment, and good government in Virginia. Now an increasing number of important, mainstream players in the state are calling on Gov. Kaine to veto this lousy piece of legislation.
According to Thursday's Post, these opponents include:
- The Northern Virginia Regional Commission, representing the 14 major cities and counties of Northern Virginia.
- AARP Virginia, 1 million members strong and a strong advocate for senior consumers.
- State Corporation Commission Chairman Theodore V. Morrison Jr. - the man running the regulatory agency that would be castrated under this proposal.
- Competing power companies that would be shut out if Dominion is allowed to resume its monopoly, including Washington Gas Energy Services and Constellation Energy.
Their voices join the chorus of consumer groups (like Virginia Citizens Consumer Council) and environmental organizations (like the Virginia Conservation Network, Piedmont Environmental Council and Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment) that have consistently opposed this bill.
Have you added your name to this illustrious list yet? If not, please send Gov. Kaine an e-mail and ask him to veto this abysmal bill. Your lungs, your wallet and your conscience will thank you!
I just saw yesterday the documentary "Enron: The smartest guys in the room". If there was ever an argument for preventing energy companies from writing their own rules, this is it.
We must have re-regulation to prevent what happened in California or Maryland, but everyone should participate in the process. And we must have a strong regulatory agency that can step in if there are any environmental or consumer abuses.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION
With nifty innovations and alternative forms of generation topping the news of late, its unfortunate the significant contribution which the boring concept of energy efficiency & conservation can provide, remains virtually buried and unknown from public knowledge. It should be at the top of everyone's list of answers which solves our energy problems of today.
The current bill suggests more studying by the SCC & DVP; but the purpose of another study is no longer required.
Detailed reports from the DOE/OE, FERC and now the PJM all conclude the same:
1. Demand-Side Management (DSM), aka demand response, should be treated the same by electric grid planners, and no different than other forms of generation.
2. Current DSM programs account for only 1.3% of actual load reduction during peak demand.
3. Obtainable projections of DSM can reduce spikes in peak demand by 3 to 7%.
4. Current DSM implementation is 12.5% to 43.9% percent of its potential capacity.
5. DSM lowers the likelihood of forced blackouts.
6. Without DSM, capital is invested inefficiently in generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure, which results in higher electric bills for customers and unnecessary environmental impact.
(Spikes in peak demand are the primary driver for expansion in generation and transmission.)
7. Aggressive implementation has been recommended by DOE to the states as a high priority in EPA 2005 (Aug), and reiterated in Feb 2006, by FERC in Aug 2006 and now by PJM in Jan 2007.
The Re-Regulation bill allows for state utilities to recover a positive rate of return on all DSM investments, including the costs & expenses due to implementing incentive-based pricing to participating customers.
Yet DSM in terms of a standard capacity is unspecified in the bill, and is only "encouraged". Under such wording, it will take another legislative proposal no sooner than 2008, to set a standard baseline percentage for state utilities to adhere.
The equivalent of the Virginia SCC in the state of Texas just recommended to its state legislature, a quadrupling of its efficiency standards by its state utility providers. Such measures are now encompassed in Texas HB 3693 introduced last Friday, Mar 9.
DSM will not force conservation - participation by customers is voluntary. Financial incentives are provided to participating customers and could also be provided to state utilities if they exceed a standard baseline percentage of total demand (similar to Texas HB 3693.)
Being that DSM will take no money off the balance sheets from any state utility, where's the harm in making DSM a mandatory law??
With all the abuse email allows, one might want to also consider faxing your correspondence to Governor Kaine. FAX 804.371.6351
Keep the pressure on!