Category Archives: Energy Issues

City Council, City of Peoria, Energy Issues

Aggregation opt-out letter a day late and candor short

5 Comments

On March 20, 2012, in the primary election a majority of citizens voted yes on a referendum question allowing corporate authorities to form a Municipal Opt-Out Electricity Aggregation. City Officials are happy to offer eligible residents and small businesses SAVINGS over Ameren Illinois (“Ameren”) rates by banding together all eligible electric service classes.

So begins the official notice I received Monday about the City’s electric aggregation opt-out program. I have been expecting this notice. But there are a couple of things that I didn’t expect:

  1. Less than 15 days to opt out. To opt out, you are required to return a form “before the deadline date of June 1, 2012.” In the Plan of Operation and Governance document received and filed by the City Council on April 10, it was stated that “there will be an Opt-Out Period of at least 15 days from the postmark date on the notice to postmark the return Opt-Out notice if they do not wish to participate in the Program.” At least 15 days, they said. So, what was the postmark on the letter? May 18. May 18 to June 1 is 14 days. Am I being nit-picky? Try paying your parking fine a day late and see how nit-picky the City is with you.
  2. No fee disclosure. The letter also avers that “you will not be charged a fee for partaking in this program.” However, the April 10 council communication states, “The program will also create a modest income source for the City of Peoria ($0.001/kWh).” Elsewhere, this is called “additional margin available to Peoria.” What is this if not a fee? I’m not necessarily saying this fee can’t be justified, but it is a fee, and should be disclosed as such.
City of Peoria, Energy Issues, Gary Sandberg, Peoria Police

City trying to cut down on idling vehicles

11 Comments

The City of Peoria is going to try to persuade its employees not to leave their city vehicles idling for long periods of time. I wouldn’t say they’re “cracking down” on the practice, because there doesn’t seem to be much more than an awareness campaign planned at the moment. But it’s not a bad first step.

Several citizens, including councilman Gary Sandberg, noticed that some police officers who would eat breakfast at a local restaurant in Peoria left their squad cars on and idling in the parking lot the whole time they were inside eating — sometimes as much as an hour or longer. When the City’s Energy Efficiency Task Force submitted their report to the council, Sandberg asked interim City Manager Henry Holling to look into the idling problem, since that’s a huge waste of energy, not to mention unnecessary pollution.

After that, the police officers never came back to the local restaurant. They apparently eat breakfast somewhere else now. That prompted Sandberg to say at a recent council meeting that “moving the problem is not solving the problem.”

So now, according to this week’s “issues update,” the city is giving all its employees who drive a city vehicle an anti-idling brochure: “A change in behavior will be reinforced with flyers posted on bulletin boards and articles in the employee newsletters. Department Heads are also emphasizing in staff meetings the need to reduce engine idling.” It doesn’t appear, however, that there will be a policy instituted or enforced.

My take: This will be great for conscientious employees who probably aren’t letting their vehicles idle excessively anyway. For those who leave their cars idling for an hour while they eat breakfast, I doubt this will make any difference whatsoever, some of them even they go and find the best dash cam online so they car are secured while they’re apart of the car. Those employees already feel justified in leaving their cars on for excessive periods of time, and will likely change their behavior only if told by a superior to knock it off. So that’s precisely what needs to happen in addition to this public-awareness campaign for any significant change to occur.

If you witness excessive idling of a city vehicle, write down the vehicle number and location and e-mail it to me. I’ll pass that information along to the city.

Energy Issues

Ethanol subsidies: Are they worth it?

1 Comment

We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
—John McCain

Ever since I posted an article on ethanol, I was put on a pro-ethanol mailing list (Renewable Fuels Association). Recently, I received this press release:

Ethanol and renewable fuels have received attention in this year’s presidential debates and in the campaign. Specifically, the assertion has been made that one way to balance the federal budget and help solve the economic crisis is to eliminate the tax incentives that have helped to build America’s domestic renewable fuels industry. Such an assertion fails to account for ethanol’s role in reducing our dependence on imported oil, lowering gas prices at the pump, stimulating investment in rural America, creating millions of green jobs, and lowering federal farm program costs. The claim that cutting these programs will save taxpayer dollars is wrong. Federal incentives for ethanol generate revenue for federal and state governments and are saving American consumers money.

Below are just some of the economic benefits realized by an increasingly robust American ethanol industry:

  • In 2007, the ethanol industry added nearly $48 billion to the nation’s GDP and generated $4.6 billion in federal tax revenues and nearly $3.6 billion in tax revenues for state and local governments.
  • According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the increased demand for grain used in ethanol production reduced federal farm program costs by more than $6 billion.
  • With clean burning ethanol blended into 70% of the nation’s gasoline, domestic ethanol production has reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil by over 400,000 barrels a day. Several independent analyses have recently concluded the use of ethanol in the U.S. is saving consumers between $0.25 and $0.50 a gallon.
  • The production and use of 6.5 billion gallons of domestic ethanol in 2007 reduced oil imports by 228 million barrels, saving $16 billion of taxpayer dollars.

These increases in tax revenues and savings in federal program payments and oil imports totals more than $30 billion. That compares to the $3.4 billion that oil companies received for blending ethanol in 2007.

By a factor of nearly 10, the investment in America’s ethanol industry is producing economic and energy security benefits that are unmatched by any other renewable fuel technology today.

Some critics, on the other hand, don’t have a problem with ethanol getting some subsidies, but believe they have been over-subsidized:

Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That’s $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).

Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM.

Still others think ethanol should be dumped completely because it’s not the eco-friendly solution it purports to be:

Scientists now believe that the production of ethanol actually creates more harmful emissions than it prevents. Indeed, Princeton University professor Timothy Searchinger and other researchers have concluded that “corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.” (Their findings were published earlier this year in Science magazine.) The reason is that converting undeveloped land to cropland—in order to grow more corn and facilitate biofuel production—releases a massive amount of carbon dioxide. Only if biofuels are made from waste products or grown on abandoned agricultural lands does the production process actually reduce GHG emissions.

It’s enough to make a midwesterner’s head spin. Good, bad, neutral — who knows for sure?

2008 Campaign, Energy Issues

Ethanol under fire

18 Comments

From the New York Times:

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to temporarily waive regulations requiring the oil industry to blend ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline. A decision is expected in the next few weeks. […]

His request for an emergency waiver cutting the ethanol mandate to 4.5 billion gallons, from the 9 billion gallons required this year and the 10.5 billion required in 2009, is backed by a coalition of food, livestock and environmental groups.

Farmers and ethanol and other biofuel producers are lobbying to keep the existing mandates.

And from Reuters:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday it will not meet a July 24 deadline for ruling on Texas’ request that the government reduce the federal mandate on how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline this year.

“Rather, additional time is needed to allow staff to adequately respond to the public comments and develop a decision document that explains the technical, economic and legal rationale of our decision,” said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who added he now expects a final decision on the Texas waiver request in early August.

Congressional candidates Colleen Callahan (D) and Aaron Schock (R) oppose cutting ethanol production or subsidies. Candidate Sheldon Schafer (Green Party) has a different view. The Journal Star quoted the candidates in June:

“Ending the federal incentives for corn growers would completely destroy an emerging industry that has repositioned itself to meet the world’s growing demand for renewable alterative energy sources,” said Democratic candidate Colleen Callahan. “That’s just a slap in the face to Middle America and particularly the farmers in Illinois and other corn-growing states.”

[…] Steve Shearer, Schock’s campaign manager, said he believes ethanol and bio-fuels are one vital component of increased energy independence.

[…] Green Party 18th candidate Sheldon Schafer argues corn-based ethanol isn’t as efficient as cellulose-based and switchgrass-based ethanol, the latter from a fast-growing variety of prairie grass, which he said have higher energy yields. “We should be looking at the highest efficiencies. Corn-based isn’t giving us those efficiencies,” Schafer said.

While the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) blames corn-based ethanol for rising food prices, others dispute this claim. GMA hired a PR firm to change public perception of ethanol by linking ethanol production to higher food prices. But experts, such as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer, say those claims are overstated:

About six weeks ago, US Department of Agriculture researchers analyzed the problem and reported that rising energy costs, decreased crop production around the world because of bad weather and increased worldwide consumption were among the factors contributing to higher food costs.

“That analysis found that ethanol and the increased use worldwide of other biofuels were both contributing factors but not major ones,” Mr Schafer said.

“The USDA shared its report with Congress and invited board members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association — which has been critical of ethanol’s impact on food prices — to discuss the findings. He said those invitations were declined.

“The grocers are targeting ethanol because they think they can change ethanol policy more easily than larger energy policy.

Whether or not ethanol leads to higher food prices, the bigger question is whether ethanol is a sufficient strategy for energy independence. That’s still up for debate.

Energy Issues

Midwest Generation cited by EPA for releasing too much soot

5 Comments

CNN reports that Illinois power plants are creating too much air pollution:

In documents released Monday, the EPA cites Midwest Generation for releasing too much microscopic air pollution. And the agency alleges that the company has continued to operate its aging power plants without adding pollution controls required by the Clean Air Act.

Midwest Generation, a unit of Edison International (EIX), owns two coal plants in Chicago, two in Will County, one outside Peoria and one in Waukegan. All of the plants were once owned by ComEd, which also has been cited by the EPA.

Hmmm… I predict energy prices are going to go up again, this time to fix aging infrastructure.

Aaron Schock, AmerenCILCO, Energy Issues, State Legislation

Maybe this is why Schock and other Republicans aren’t signing on to HB 5766

44 Comments

A bill in the Illinois General Assembly, HB5766, would extend the current electricity rate freeze three more years (providing relief for Illinois families) and is supported by the Citizens Utility Board. However, our representative in the 92nd district, Aaron Schock, isn’t signed on as a co-sponsor, nor is any other Republican.

I’d like to say I remembered to follow the money immediately, but to be honest, it wasn’t until challenged by a commenter on Billy’s blog that I actually checked Schock’s campaign contribution record.

According to his Jul-Dec 2005 and Jan-Jun 2006 D-2 Semi-annual campaign contribution reports, Schock received:

  • $1,300 from AMEREN Illinois PAC ($1,000 in 2006 and $300 in 2005)
  • $1,250 from MidAmerican Engergy Holdings, which provides power to the Quad Cities ($1,000 in 2006 and $250 in 2005)
  • $800 from Exelon PAC; Exelon owns Commonwealth Edison, which provides power to Chicago ($500 in 2006 and $300 in 2005)
  • $500 from the Illinois Energy Association ($250 in 2006 and $250 in 2005)

That’s a pretty good chunk of change. I imagine he’s probably going to vote against HB 5766.

Energy Issues

Sensible environmentalism

9 Comments

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m looking for ways to cut my energy costs — without having to live like the Unabomber. Eyebrows McGee has been writing me giving me all sorts of great ideas, and now she has compiled many of them into this post on her blog. It’s well worth the read, especially since electricity costs are currently slated to skyrocket in January.

She’s what I would call a “sensible environmentalist.” When I see environmentalists on, say, C-SPAN or something, they’re usually advocating some totally unrealistic or radical method of saving energy (like living in a yurt), and I just roll my eyes and move on. But Eyebrows has some very practical things that don’t involve completely changing your lifestyle.

I can totally buy all her suggestions except for one: replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones. I understand the energy savings, but I hate fluorescent lights. I hate how they look and how they make me feel. Their light casts a pall on everything that I find utterly depressing. (I know, I know, I should talk to a psychologist about this.) I prefer the soft yellow-white light of a burning incandescent globe, and I don’t think I could ever give that up. It’s easy to install. You can also hire electricians like W3 Electric to do it for you. You can also upgrade your Electrical Panel if it’s already old; this will help you save more money.

Other than that, great ideas — I especially like the idea of solar roofing materials; that’s clearly come a long way since big solar panels. Nice to know the aesthetes are making headway in beautifying (or at least camouflaging) new technology. For roofing installation, you can visit their site or contact experts like Bondoc Roofing.

AmerenCILCO, Energy Issues, State Legislation

Price freeze hasn’t hurt Ameren’s profits

21 Comments

The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) has compiled some interesting data on Ameren. Starting in 1997, the year electricity rates were frozen by the state, they graph Ameren’s profits every other proceeding year, right up to 2005. One would expect profits to be modest at best, given the handicap of a rate freeze. But check this out:

Ameren Profits from CUB

Doesn’t look like the price freeze negatively affected their ability to nearly double their profits over the past ten years. So, it appears Ameren doesn’t really need that 55% increase, does it? It would be fair for someone to retort, “Why shouldn’t they be allowed to raise their rates 55%? Let the free market decide!”

Ah, but therein lies the problem. Ameren is still a monopoly in residential services. If you don’t like the Ameren rate hike and decide to go with their competition… you can’t, because there is no competition. Thus, consumers do deserve protection from price gouging — and a good case can be made that this is, in fact, price gouging.

There are those who are trying to help. CUB has “filed a brief with the appellate court, arguing the [rate hike] plan is illegal and hits consumers with unfair market prices at a time when the power companies still hold a monopoly on residential services,” according to today’s Journal Star. And Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is trying to get the results of the recent reverse auction thrown out on the same basis.

CUB also reports, “Under the Electric Consumer Protection Act, HB 5766, rates would be frozen for another three years or until at least 33 percent of residential customers have switched electric suppliers.” So, it looks like there’s a possibility that 55% rate hike may not take effect in January after all.

AmerenCILCO, Energy Issues

Electric Shock: Homesteading not so crazy-sounding now

10 Comments

Electric ShockAfter budget-busting increases in natural gas last winter, now we get to see the other half of our CILCO bills go through the roof. AmerenCILCO announced yesterday that electric rates will rise 55 percent starting in January 2007. Pioneer-life doesn’t seem as far-fetched all of a sudden.

I remember reading about the Howerter family in a Journal Star series on homesteading. They were living “off the grid” — that is, without any electricity they couldn’t generate for themselves. It was a hard life, not unlike the ones the pioneers lived when they came to this area. You just don’t realize how much time and energy is saved by our modern appliances. I admired their idealism, but thought it was crazy to try such a thing.

Until now.

Oh, I’m not moving my family into a rural log cabin and becoming a modern day Ingalls homestead. But I am considering things I never thought I would even explore: ways to get off the grid. Right now I’m looking at the feasibility of solar power and ways to conserve energy in our house. There are surprisingly (to me) a huge number of resources on the internet on ways to conserve and generate one’s own electricity.

I was just reading an article in Home Power Magazine about a family who installed a solar electricity system, also called “PV,” short for “photovoltaics.” Even with this system and all their conservation efforts in place, they still couldn’t produce enough electricity to get completely off the grid, especially in the winter months when there obviously is very little sun and a lot of furnace blower energy being used. But in the summer months, they came very close to producing 100% of their electricity needs. So, that tells me it’s at least worth exploring. For concerns like these, it’s better to visit sites like https://allheatingservices.com/furnace-repair/ and consult professionals.

We’ve got to do something. We simply can’t afford a 55% increase in our current CILCO bills.