Please forward us the attached exhibit Peter discusses in his email: "shows energy consumption by residential class (e.g., single family, apartment, condo etc.), by square footage, age of construction, etc."
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Robbie Webber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
