Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Need responces to FITs comments at PUCN

Expand Messages
  • Bob Tregilus
    Hi Everyone - On Wednesday (2/18), the first round of comments were submitted to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) on their investigation into
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 18, 2010
    Hi Everyone -

    On Wednesday (2/18), the first round of comments were submitted to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) on their investigation into FITs.

    We did rather well with Vote Solar, Solar Alliance (sort of), Black Rock Solar, and Western Resource Advocates were all fairly supportive, but with certain reservations pertaining mostly to tariff design.

    PUCN staff, and most notably NV Energy (Nevada's sole regulated public utility) and the Nevada Bureau of Consumer Protection were largely opposed.

    I plan to respond to the majority of their concerns, however, I could use help with the Bureau of Consumer Protection. I've attached their comment to this note. If you wish, you can visit the PUCN website (it's possibly the most unusable website on the planet) and look at the other comments as well (the FITs part is the fifth docket down the page):
    <http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/pucn/DktInfo.aspx?Util=Rulemaking> Alternatively, I've converted the most relevant comments to PDFs and have posted them here:
    http://ElectricNevada.org/download

    Regarding consumer protection: principally they are concerned about ratepayer impact, especially so given Nevada's "fragile" economy. BTW: Nevada was once the fastest growing state in the US. As such, we are now one of the most troubled by the recession. It is really bad here. It's possible they will be _closing_ some colleges in the special legislative session that's coming up next week (I think), and cutting other vital programs. There's already a lot of professors for hire in this state.

    So, what I'm looking for are strong arguments explaining how ratepayer impact is negligible in the beginning of a FIT program, how it's offset by economic stimulus, and how ratepayer impact can be mitigated by "creative" accounting similar to what's suggested at the FIT Coalition website here: <http://bit.ly/9NoB4x>. Additionally, Nevada is uniquely positioned to export RE to neighboring states - if we can deploy enough capacity. Not to mention the possibility of manufacturing, &c.

    As mentioned earlier, the PUCN website is nearly unusable. If you want to reply directly, and have time to jump through a lot of hoops to post your comment electronically, please do so!

    Otherwise, if you simply email me any comments on or off list, with a short bio of who you are, I'll be happy to append your comments to the one I'll be filing.

    The period to reply to the comments closes on Wednesday, February 24 at 2:00pm PST.

    Thanks!

    Be well,
    Bob Tregilus
    775 826-4514

    Co-host -
    This Week in Energy (TWiE)
    http://ThisWeekinEnergy.tv
    (Our latest show featured Chelsea Sexton from Who Killed the Electric Car? and Maria Stefanovich of Oregon State University talking about NIMBYs and related subjects.)

    Co-chair -
    Electric Auto Association of Northern Nevada
    http://ElectricNevada.org

    "The long-term case for V2G [vehicle-to-grid]
    boils down to a choice. We can keep the electric
    system and vehicle fleet separate, in which case
    we substantially increase the cost of renewable
    energy because we have to build storage to match
    intermittent capacity. Or, we can connect the
    vehicle and electric power systems intelligently,
    using the vast untapped storage of an emerging
    electric-drive vehicle fleet to serve the electric
    grid."
    --Drs. Willett Kempton & Jasna Tomi , 2004

    In a world without walls, who needs Windows?
    Registered Linux user #471603
    http://counter.li.org
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.