Tag Archives: energy conservation

Solar tariff damaging to solar growth in Georgia –GSEA

GSEA PR of yesterday about Georgia Power’s attempt to tax rooftop solar generators. Proposed Solar Tariff Unfair and Damaging to Solar Growth in Georgia,

Atlanta, GA — The Georgia Solar Energy Association Chairman Mark Bell said today that the tariff on solar installations proposed in the Georgia Power rate request now under consideration by the Public Service Commission is unfair to solar customers.

The tariff, which will add roughly $22 a month to residential solar customers’ bills beginning in 2014, will have a significant “chilling effect” on the robust growth of solar development now under way in Georgia. Solar investment currently is providing jobs and new infrastructure throughout the state, including its rural areas where economic investment is badly needed. Solar energy is making Georgia farms more cost-effective and productive, and high-demand manufacturing more efficient.

“This proposal penalizes solar at the exclusion of other energy saving methods, which Georgia Power supports. Georgia Power has traditionally Continue reading →

Which first to get more solar: fight big money or new technology?

In Georgia we’re still below 1% electric power generation from solar, and we can get to 20-30% with no new technology whatever. Georgia Power’s nuke overruns are already causing a reaction of still more distributed solar. Yet even that good news gets the usual reaction: “This is necessary but not sufficient: a breakthrough in energy storage technology is required.” Which just ain’t so; distributed rooftop solar alone is plenty to move Georgia way ahead. That’s why Edison Electric Institute calls distributed solar a massively disruptive influence on the utilities’ century-old cozy baseload model. What’s holding solar back is those same big utilities, who understandably don’t want to change their long-time cash cow. But they’re going to change, and pretty quickly.

People unfamiliar with the sunny south (which is most of the world south of, oh, Germany), still say things like this: Continue reading →

Southern Company missed earnings on Kemper Coal but Plant Vogtle is dominant

The dominant financial consideration is “what’s going to happen with Georgia”, meaning with nuclear Plant Vogtle, said SO CEO Tom Fanning, referring to the GA PSC CWIP monitoring hearings currently in progress. Meanwhile, that $160 million estimate 2 July 2013 of more Kemper Coal cost overruns by 30 July turned into $278 million after taxes (AP). This is on top of $333 million after taxes in May. SO earnings fell 52% (WSJ), missing projections, and SO stock dropped 2% yesterday.

Remember GA PSC Tim Echols already suggested a Plant Vogtle cost overrun cap similar to the one Mississippi PSC applied to Kemper Coal that caused SO to have to eat all those costs. If that happens, SO’s got financial problems.

Has SO seen the solar light yet, as in reliable, dependable, and deployable on time and on budget? Nope. Solar was tacked onto the end of Tom Fanning’s summary of interesting stuff in the 31 July 2013 earnings call: Continue reading →

SO’s plan to make the Southeast a net exporter of the energy from solar and wind? –John S. Quarterman @ SO 2013-05-22

SO CEO Tom Fanning didn’t budge from nuclear and coal, but he did announce a tiger team to get on top of distributed solar and wind through a smart grid, headed by SO’s COO, at the 22 May 2013 Southern Company Stockholder Meeting.

Next question --Tom Fanning Mr. John S. Quarterman from Lowndes County, Georgia, and he holds 220 shares of Southern Company.

TF: Hello, John. Good to see you again this year.

jsq with SO fade jsq: Hi. I’ve come to compliment Tom Fanning and Paul Bowers. Last year, Tom Fanning was so persuasive I ran out and bought $10,000 worth of stock.

TF: Bless you. [Applause]

However, apparently because of SO’s admission a few minutes before in that same meeting that it was going to have to eat Kemper Coal cost overruns, SO stock tanked that same day, causing my stock to stop out, and Standard & Poor’s downgraded SO the following day because of Kemper Coal, noting that if the same thing happened with SO’s nuclear project at Plant Vogtle, S&P’s would probably Continue reading →

Re-evaluate Plant Vogtle and move to wind and solar power –Courtney Hanson @ GA PSC 2013-06-18

Re-evaluate Plant Vogtle, especially its water use, and move to efficiency, wind, and solar power instead, said Courtney Hanson of Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions (GA WAND) at the Georgia Public Service Commission meeting Tuesday 18 June 2013.

She reminded GA PSC Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 are late and over budget, and then:

I want to add my voice to the chorus of folks here who are concerned about water issues. We know that Vogtle 3 and 4 will require an additional withdrawal of as much as 74 million gallons a day from the Savannah River and most of that water will not be returned. We know that the central Savannah River area where Vogtle is located is already very prone to droughts and the plant has been close to shutting down several times due to drought conditions. Georgia is also already struggling to supply enough water for our homes, businesses, industries, and farms.

In addition, the Savannah River is Continue reading →

It is not enough to add a little solar and wind on top of fossil and fission fuels –a German @ GA PSC 2013-06-18

A German national residing in Georgia asked for a serious effort on energy efficiency and conservation while switching to real renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels and nuclear, at the Georgia Public Service Commission meeting Tuesday 18 June 2013.

She said increasing fires and floods were part of climate change, and we need to do something about it.

I always hear this phrase “growing energy demand” as if it’s something, some matter of fact. A growing economy means growing energy demand, and that means consequently growing waste, growing pollution, growing inequity, and so on. Any thinking person should notice that we need to find a way out. For anyone concerned about our future, business as usual is no longer acceptable. We need drastic changes in our energy supply. We need to use less.

Only a month earlier, Tom Fanning, CEO of Georgia Power’s parent company Southern Company reemphasized yet again that

To us, growing the economy is how we’re going to make profit.

Yet GA PSC could do something about that antique attitude, as this speaker pointed out: Continue reading →

More solar, less nuke cost overruns –Glenn Carroll @ GA PSC 2013-06-18

Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South asked GA PSC to raise the 2 MW solar cap and to get Georgia Power to build solar in Georgia rather than in distant states, plus efficiency and conservation, at the Georgia Public Service Commission meeting Tuesday 18 June 2013.

She said they’d gotten a lot of national attention on Plant Vogtle, which was having a legendary bad year, in procurement, costs, etc. She praised Sierra Club, Georgia Watch, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) for intervening in Georgia Power’s IRP.

The world has changed really really fast and Georgia Power is being isolated. It is protected financially of course because of the small business and residential customers that are covering all of the risks that they are taking. We want solar power here, not Arizona and New Mexico.

She recommended conservation and efficiency programs at Port Angeles, presumably the one in Washington State.

Here’s the video:

Continue reading →

Increased investment in demand-side reduction –a homebuilder @ GA PSC 2013-06-18

Paul[?] Matthews said he’s been green since before it was cool, first in an earlier Georgia Power program (EarthCraft), and now in EarthCents. He thinks the program is good, with both environmental and economic benefits, but he asked for it to be extended to become a model for the south, at the Georgia Public Service Commission meeting Tuesday 18 June 2013.

He spoke about his company’s investment in sustainable efficiency and conservation, and asked GA PSC and Georgia Power to also do more.

A much more efficient way and cost-effective of reducing power is by reducing energy used. We’re not only looking at tripling the savings over the next ten years, but we’re also looking at job growth….

…a sustainable and long-term growth approach.

Let’s make the rebates and also the tax credits so they’re a model for Georgia and also for the south.

Here’s the video:

Continue reading →

EarthCents has taken a lot of power bill mystery away –a contractor @ GA PSC 2013-06-18

A contractor who does homeowner education as part of Georgia Power’s Earth Cents program praised that program at the Georgia Public Service Commission meeting Tuesday 18 June 2013.

He said homeowners tend to complain about power bills:

And this Earth Cents program has, in my experience, taken a lot of that mystery away. The homeowners that I touch and I deal with come away with an understanding that leaves them less concerned about the rate hikes that I’m sure keep you guys up at night when it comes to a vote and more concerned about where the money is actually going.

I’m guessing he means homeowners are more concerned about what Georgia Power is using to generate the power.

Earth Cents, according to Southern Company:

Introduced in 2008, EarthCents energy efficiency programs help our customers save energy and money while reducing greenhouse gases. EarthCents comprises a set of standing and new programs—and educational efforts—to reduce residential and commercial electricity consumption.

Here’s the video:

Continue reading →

Very restrictive definition of energy efficiency by Georgia Power and SO

Beware that when Southern Company claims it’s doing a lot about energy efficiency it is, but SO is using it’s own definition that is much more restrictive than it could be.

SACE wrote 26 February 2013, Southern Company: Squirreling the Energy Efficiency Debate

Southern Company has a solid track record of squirreling the definition of energy efficiency to avoid debate. And Southern Company has good reason to avoid the debate: Its utilities consistently advocate what is considered by national experts to be the “most restrictive” approach to designing energy efficiency programs.

Just how restrictive, you ask? Continue reading →