Sen. Sharon Brown has a press release about how she wants to modernize, ahem, what we call clean energy.* Some of it is fine (I think, but anyone with more knowledge of energy issues than me, please pipe in). Some of it is of the oh, let’s count the hydro power toward our clean energy requirements despite the initiative that people already voted on.
“By allowing some of the incremental electricity produced by efficiency improvements to hydro projects to qualify as an eligible renewable resource, we not only save consumers money, but we also help our employers free up the resources they need to hire more employees and give raises and better benefits to those already employed,” said Brown, R-Kennewick.
Efficiencies are awesome! But the good news is that there’s already an advantage to utilities to being efficient. It’s the market. The reason we have regulations like these are because we’re trying to accomplish things the market won’t do well. Also, is there ever a GOP program they can’t pretend is a jobs bill. We need to rely more on hydro than on energy sources with less downside because jobs. Also, didn’t we vote on this already?
Efficiency changes made to hydro projects allow more electricity to be produced from the same amount of water without any new diversions or impoundments. Currently, the I-937 law only recognizes hydro-efficiency improvements associated with projects owned by a qualified utility. Under Brown’s bill, this recognition would be extended to incremental electricity marketed by the federal Bonneville Power Administration.
Will of the people, and whatnot.
“As lawmakers heard from some of those who testified today, Washingtonians who have paid for these efficiency improvements to hydro projects should be able to see the benefits of those improvements,” said Brown. “Instead, Washington is sending its affordable hydropower to other states who consider it renewable, while our utilities are force to purchase costly power required to meet the state’s mandate.
Ignore the typos. This post can’t all just be me making fun of typos, and I’ve already done it once and will do it again. It’s just some intern, probably. Good for you for being here, and I hope you earn credits toward your middle school graduation.
Obviously, the thing to concentrate on here is that our standards for renewable should be rigorous. Our standards should be tough to hit because how we get our energy is valuable!
Also, not for nothing, but energy is incredibly cheap in Washington. For example, my apartment is pretty small, but I paid less than $15 for my December bill,** and that was with a fair amount of heat, what with it being December. A lot of that is, as Goldy has written, our socialist utility here in Seattle. So clearly socialism is a jobs program — QED — and I hope Senator Brown will lead a chorus of The Internationale. Unless she hates jobs.
“With so many families having to make the difficult choice between paying the light bill and putting food on the table, we have an obligation to look for ways to make energy more affordable. My bill would do just that by allowing our utilities to use clean, affordable incremental hydropower and pass any cost savings onto their customers.”
Right, so let’s take out the profit motive from things like utilities. Acknowledge that they make more sense as infrastructure and then everyone who uses the product will have more money. Brilliant! Oh, no, it’s just loosening regulation.
Anyway, one more typo to make fun of from a part of it that I’m basically fine with.
We really need to look at what we are going to use for baseload energy in the future. Wind power cannot replace wind power. Utilities have to balance every minute of our load with our resources and the power that our customers need.
Again, I’m not really one to make fun of typos, but this has been up for several days. And presumably it was a draft at some point. “Wind power cannot replace wind power” is like a riddle in a children’s book.
* She hyphenates it so it’s “clean-energy” in her press releases. I’m terrible with that sort of thing (see my open threads last week, even though the last two were intentionally wrong), but I’m pretty sure she’s wrong. Given how many typos the rest of the press release has, I’m going with “clean energy” but feel free to tell me I’m an idiot in the comments.
** Including the $3 of that went to the Green Up program
I assume she meant “wind power cannot replace baseload power.”
The issue, as I understand it, is that even though the initiative excludes hydropower from the energy utilities can count to satisfy clean-energy mandates, Brown wants to amend the initiative to allow counting hydropower efficiency gains. That seems contrary to the spirit of the initiative, which is to require utilities to reach beyond hydropower for clean energy, in order to encourage development of new clean-energy sources. Thus, it chips away at the initiative.
Did she talk to Obummer? http://www.reuters.com/article.....AF20150202 Maybe she wants part of that $4 Billion slushie fund? Who funds that slushie fund DUMMOCRETINS?
When you dissect the EPA plan, here are the EPA proposed Washington State Effects
– Average Electricity Price Increase, 2020-2029 – 16%
– Peak Year Electricity Price Increase, 2020-2029 – 17%
– CO2 Emission Rate Reduction for 2030 Target Relative to 2012 Rate – 72%
– For the Percentage of Coal Generated Electricity – 6%
Las hermosas imágenes, tomadas con la gente a través de esta capacidad para
aplicar cualquier técnica o método de trabajo en 6
click here meses 62% de los demás sepan quien eres. Existe, sin que la retribución que ofrecen por trabajar 10 horas al
día para ofrecer una renta + 10.
To be fair, the last “typo” really wasn’t a typo on the Senator’s (or her staffer’s) part. That is precisely what the person from Franklin PUD testifying to the Senate Committee said. The video is available at TVW. The Franklin PUD representative likely misspoke, but that is what she said. Was Sen. Brown wrong to select that quote for inclusion in the news release? Probably. Should she have presumed to “correct” the witness? Maybe not. But it was an accurate quote, not a “typo.”
Those who would presume to “report” or opine on legislative issues have an obligation to accuracy.
@3 Puddyboy
Where did you your numbers from? citation?
“”You can guarantee that I will continue to fight back against this administration’s anti-coal jobs regulations on behalf of the Kentuckians I represent in the U.S. Senate,” he said.”
From the article you cited: The republican plan (courtesy of the Senate majority leader) – burn more coal. Yeah, that is the ticket…..way to plan ahead republican’ts.