 |
The final agreement, reached after three months of negotiation, will supply the state grid with sufficient power while creating a net reduction in air pollution. Terms of the agreement include the existing, older diesel-powered New Haven Harbor Station using more natural gas instead of diesel to produce power, reducing plant idling time from 14 hours to 12 hours, and contributing $500,000 to the new East Shore Air Quality Account – a fund to be used to further reduce pollution in the area through initiatives such as retrofitting garbage trucks with particulate filters. These reductions will more than offset emissions from the new peaking plants that are being built.
Dear Editor
I am responding to the New Haven Register's recent Editorial about energy efficiency legislation and light bulb technology. Take what side you will on the legislation, but please get the facts straight. First, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) cost less than incandescents -- both at the counter and on your electric bill. A CFL is rated to last about eight times longer than an incandescent in the same application. For equivalent life, incandescent bulbs will total $.25x8=$2 at the counter. That's twice as expensive as the $1 CFLs I recently purchased. More significantly, efficient CFLs offer much higher savings through an immediate reductions on your electricity bill. At today's electric rates, each 60W bulb replaced with an equivalent CFL can save more than $70 over the life of the bulb.
The claim that CFLs emit less light is simply not true. Light output, measured in "lumens", can be found right on the package. Just select an output to meet your needs. You will find ratings to match equivalent incandescents. If you like the yellow color of incandescents, try a "soft white" CFL and/or use an appropriate lampshade. There have been improvements in this area so give it another go if you have been turned off in the past.
Most importantly, the notion that any incandescent can possibly compete with a CFL in terms of efficiency is laughable. An incandescent bulb is a resistance heater that sheds a little light in the process: for every 10 Watts of electricity in, 9 are shed as heat and 1 converted to visible light. The Phillips bulb referenced in your article has gained a respectable 30 percent in efficiency over a standard bulb. However, a typical CFL is 700 percent more efficient than an incandescent (10W input = 7W light + 3W heat). Is there really any contest here?
If you oppose CFL legislation because you don't like being told what to buy then so be it. But please don't throw money down the toilet because of myths and misinformation.
This bill provides stable funding for residential solar installations- no longer will households compete with large and expensive commercial solar installations for scarce funds
Without this bill there is no more commercial solar program for the foreseeable future in CT- that means no new solar systems on schools, town buildings, churches and businesses, and solar companies moving to states like MA and NJ with solar programs.
In addition to funding for solar on buildings, the bill allows for large freestanding solar installations on under-utilized lands like brownfields, landfills, parking lots, etc which aren't viable under current law.
A site on the Mill River in New Haven was conveyed by UI in 2000 to an unaffiliated entity, Quinnipiac Energy LLC (QE), reserving to UI permanent easements for the operation of its transmission facilities on the site. At the time of the sale, a fund of approximately $1.9 million, an amount equal to the then-current estimate for remediation, was placed in escrow for purposes of bringing soil and groundwater on the site into compliance with applicable environmental laws. Approximately $0.1 million of the escrow fund remains unexpended. QE has since sold the property to Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat). UI is unaware of what agreement was reached between QE and Evergreen Power and Asnat regarding future environmental liability or what remediation activity remains to be undertaken at the site. UI could be required by applicable environmental laws to finish remediating any subsurface contamination at the site if it is determined that QE and/or Evergreen Power and Asnat have not completed the appropriate environmental remediation at the site. In July 2008, Evergreen Power and Asnat submitted a claim seeking compensation for environmental remediation on the property, including the existing building which remains on the site. Based upon the current status of the evaluation, UIL Holdings has not recorded a liability related to this claim in its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2009.
If high oil and natural gas prices were the cause, electric rates should have fallen along with fuel prices. Rates have barely budged.I think he is probably aware that our rates are based on long(ish)-term contracts that buffer sharp rises and dips in fuel costs. However, I do not deny that profit seeking middlemen are primary driver in our high costs.
Energy and Technology CommitteePUBLIC HEARING AGENDATuesday, February 24, 20091:00 PM in Room 2D of the LOBH.B. No. 6510 (RAISED) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY.Connecticut Electric AuthorityHB 6510 AA Establishing a Public Power AuthorityWhat is a Connecticut Electric Authority?A Connecticut Electric Authority (CEA) is a quasi-public state agency responsible for lowering electricity costs to all consumers. Currently, electricity regulation, system planning, electricity procurement and conservation are handled by numerous state agencies in a disjointed manner. Under a CEA, a single state electricity “czar” would consolidate state efforts and reduce electricity rates. Rates would be reduced by expediting the transition from purchasing electricity based on the quirky Federal Energy Regulatory Commission market rules to a cost-of-service system where consumers pay only for the cost of generating electricity and a reasonable profit. A CEA should, over a period of years, reduce electricity rates up to 20%. If the CEA can reduce rates by just 1 cent per kilowatt/hour, consumer electricity bills would be reduced by 5.5%, or $300 million. This is a large rate of return on a $2 million CEA budget.Why do we need a CEA?1. We need one agency to purchase our electricity directly from generators.Connecticut’s electricity prices are the second highest in the continental U.S. Our current system of purchasing electricity does not provide rate protection for consumers. Federal electricity market rules skew upwards the price we pay for electricity. A CEA will have the authority to plan and purchase electricity directly from generators, reducing long-term electricity costs for consumers.2. We need one agency to bolster electricity supply and promote renewable sources.When it would be beneficial for consumers, a CEA with bonding authority will be able to provide low-cost financing for new, highly efficient power plants to augment our existing fleet, replacing old, inefficient polluters. A CEA with long-term contracting authority will then be able to negotiate low-cost electricity purchases from these new plants.3. We need one agency to reduce demand for electricity.Reduced demand for electricity through the ‘grid’ system will reduce overall electricity prices. Connecticut can reduce electricity costs through a focused approach to conservation. We currently have numerous governmental entities funding conservation programs, but these efforts are not coordinated effectively for consumers. A single agency with fully integrated conservation programs and a system to allow consumers to readily access comprehensive conservation assistance is the most effective way to reduce electricity demand and allow consumers to control their utility bills.
