You've probably heard about the MG&E and WE Energies plan to increase the base charge for customers, which would make conservation and investment in renewable energy much less attractive. But did you know that it would also penalize urban density and incentivize sprawl?
See email chain below from Pete Taglia on that subject.Please forward freely. Today is the last day to submit written comments to the PSC, and Pete is also asking for folks to show up en mass--on bike if possible--at the hearing tomorrow. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst 608-263-9984 (o) [email protected] All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or any other group with which I am affiliated. I'm going to be using two big bike trailers tomorrow morning to bring a giant inflatable coal plant as a prop, and a bike-trailer mounted solar PV and battery system to power the blower. The rally at the PSC starts at 9 am (www.repowermadison.org) I hope there are more bicyclists to make the visuals even nicer. RE: We Energies, their plan is much worse for solar but their increase in the fixed charge is lower than MG&E. We Energies proposes to increase the fixed charge from $9 to $16 per month, while MGE proposes to increase the fixed charge from $10.50 to $19 per month and WPS is the worst, proposing to go from $10.40 to $25 per month. Cheers, Pete 9:54, Peter Taglia wrote: > > > You may have heard about the proposals by Madison Gas and Electric, We > Energies and WPS to increase fixed charges and decrease the energy charge. > Yes, this is bad for energy efficiency, solar and seniors, but deep in the > analyses are some profound subsidies for low-density, high consumption > housing at the expense of higher density consumers. > > From the testimony of Bill Marcus, the expert hired by the City of Madison > in the MGE rate case: > > "Thus a significant failing of the minimum system [the rate design > approach chosen by MGE] is the systematic overcharging of people who live > in apartments, who are cheaper to serve because they are more densely > packed (thus needing less primary voltage line to be connected to the > system), share transformers and have much shorter runs of secondary and > service lines. Customer costs (and customer charges if based on those > costs) should be lower for apartment dwellers. Given that people living in > apartments tend to have lower incomes than people living in houses, as > discussed below, the end result is that the minimum system causes the poor > to subsidize the rich." > > It gets even worse. Check this out from Bill's original direct testimony > (this was later struck from the record after MGE withdrew their proposals > for 2016 and 2017, for now. But it sure shows where things are headed: > > "Mr. Bollum [MGE]/ claims that “a couple of kilowatts” simply comes out in > the wash, and that an apartment dweller who uses say 4 kW less than a large > single-family home owner (2.6 vs. 6.6 kW – plus or minus a couple of kW) > should pay the same amount as the large single-family home owner. He > doesn’t care that the apartment dweller (if not served by off-peak electric > heat) is responsible for 39% as many demand costs as the owner of the big > house – in his own “plus or minus a couple of kilowatts” analysis. The > Company doesn’t know if the apartment dweller is cheaper to hook up. (MGE > Response to City of Madison Data Request No. MAD-96, PSC REF#: 214259), > even though a number of other utilities know that apartment hook-ups are > cheaper than single-family hook-ups, and the State of Nevada even has > separate rate classes with lower rates for apartments than for > single-family houses. Thus, even if we accept Mr. Bollum’s premise, which I > do not, he is deliberately and knowingly overcharging small users, because > it isn’t worth bothering to get it right. Exhibit Ex.-City of > Madison-Marcus-10 contains an analysis provided by MGE (part of the > response to City of Madison Data Request No. MAD-92, PSC REF#: 214095) > showing lower use in multi-family than single-family homes, lower use by > renters, and lower use in dwellings with fewer square feet. The Company’s > long- term rate design policy is to demand that seniors on fixed incomes in > apartments, which are cheaper to hook up and use less demand (particularly > diversified on a system basis), subsidize mansions." > > The above is from the original direct testimony: > http://psc.wi.gov/apps35/ERF_view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=218384 > > If you like graphics, check out the attached exhibit that shows energy > consumption by residential class (e.g., single family, apartment, condo > etc.), by square footage, age of construction, etc. > There's more info and ways to get involved (TODAY is the last day to > submit written comments to the PSC, tomorrow is the rally and public > testimony). Do you have any suggestions on engaging progressive > transportation folks on the issue? > > Pete > -- > > Peter Taglia > > Environmental Geologist > 718 West Brittingham Place > Madison, WI 53715 > (608) 217.8219 > [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
