Several major pieces of environmental legislation are now moving at the Arkansas legislature! We need your help to make good things happen!
A whole package of energy efficiency legislation was filed that will help the environment, save consumers money and create good Arkansas jobs. It's a great package that will need a lot of support to pass. Support better energy policy for Arkansas by signing the petition at: http://www.citizensfirst.org/issues/env ... for-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The most critical parts of the package will need to pass the Insurance and Commerce Committee.
http://www.citizensfirst.org/updoads/MapCommerceH.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; House and
http://www.citizensfirst.org/updoads/mapCommerceS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Senate .
You can find maps of these committees and contact info for all the legislators on them at http://www.CitizensFirst.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in the 2009 Legislative Guide section. Other parts of the package will need to pass through the Energy; State Agencies; and Public Transportation committees.
There are two other VERY IMPORTANT bills to support. Call or write your representatives. You can find your representatives at the links above:
* SB1968 (Webb) will end the appearance of conflicts of interest on regulatory boards and commissions in Arkansas. It requires members of state regulatory boards and commissions to disclose their financial interests and recues from votes where either, they, their employer or their family members have a direct financial interest. It empowers the Arkansas Ethics Commission to investigate violations and complaints.
* SB115 expands the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality to regulate and issue permits for waste disposal from crude oil and natural gas production. The new shale developments in Arkansas stand to create millions of gallons of toxic waste and companies are looking to dispose of some of it on Delta farm land.
Below is the entire list of environmental bills flagged by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel with a brief explanation. The Panel keeps us informed about legislation of interest.
ENVIRONMENT:
Support:
* A WIN!!! HB1577 (Lindsey) will add conservation tax credits to the Wetland and Riparian Zones Tax Credit Program, broadening landowners options for protecting water assets and increasing the likelihood of their voluntary participation. This bill is now awaiting the Governor’s signature!
Energy and Global Warming Package of 7 bills are:
* HB1903 (Cash) The Energy Efficiency Performance Standards Act of 2009 will require the PSC to expand existing electric and gas utility programs that help make homes and businesses more efficient, make free or low-cost energy audits for all Arkansans, provide incentives for insulation and weatherization and create jobs by expanding businesses involved in energy efficiency. It is in the House Insurance and Commerce Committee.
* HB1851 (Webb) will help lower barriers to creating a renewable energy market in Arkansas and help consumers and Arkansas companies upgrade to renewable energy. It will create new energy technology companies in Arkansas, positioning us to lead the new energy based economy. It is in the House Insurance and Commerce Committee.
* HB1663 (Webb) Lead By Example This bill will increase efficiency in schools and government buildings by creating a timetable for carefully assessing and gradually retrofitting state buildings to improve their energy efficiency resulting in substantial savings for the state. It is in the Joint Energy Committee.
* SB584 (Broadway) will provide low-cost financing to be used to retrofit state government and school facilities and remove legal barriers to the funding that would make them more energy efficient. This bill is in the Senate Insurance and Commerce Committee.
* SB440 (Broadway) allows the work of the Task Force to continue. Its mission is to review, discuss and advise on issues related to sustainable building design. It is in the Senate State Agencies Committee.
* HB1902 (Cash) will amend the Arkansas motorcycle code to allow highly efficient 3-wheeled electric vehicles on the streets regulated as cars and not motorcycles. It is in the House Public Transportation Committee.
* HB2008 (Webb) gives a tax credit to encourage the recovery and use of landfill methane gas. It has s not been assigned to committee yet.
* SB115 expands the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality to regulate and issue permits for waste disposal from crude oil and natural gas production. The new shale developments in Arkansas stand to create millions of gallons of toxic waste and companies are looking to dispose of some of it on Delta farm land.
* SB1968 (Webb) will the appearance of conflicts of interest on regulatory boards and commissions in Arkansas. It requires members of state regulatory boards and commissions to disclose their financial interests and recuse from votes where either, they, their employer or their family members have a direct financial interest. It empowers the Arkansas Ethics Commission to investigate
* HB1424 (Webb) requires financial assurance of landfarms where drilling wastes are disposed so that someday remediation can take place.
Oppose:
* HB1026 (G. Smith) ensures that a majority of the members of the Oil and Gas Commission are from the Oil and Gas Industry. See our talking points on this bill here. Classic fox guarding the hen house problems arise from this bill that will further erode the voices for the public good on the Commission. The Bill has passed the House and the Senate, and now must re-pass the House to concur with a Senate Amendment. Please urge your House members to vote no.
Monitoring:
* HB1472 (R. Green) to improve the local control of solid waste management by allowing an alternative formation of a solid waste management district.
* HB1560 (Maxwell) spends $1.5 million in tax dollars subsidizing lignite coal mining in South Arkansas.
* HB1796 (Allen) creates an Arkansas Alternative Energy Commission
* HB1746 (Edwards) expands the definition of watersheds to include drainage areas, and
seeks to increase protections for drinking water sources and other critical water habitat.
* SB551 (G. Jeffress) -- THE LIGNITE MINERAL INTEREST LAPSE ACT OF 2009 this bill
appears to automatically remove mineral rights from landowners who do not develop them.
State Legislature Heats Up!!!
State Legislature Heats Up!!!
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine
Re: State Legislature Heats Up!!!
It's your government. Get involved! 
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine
Comments on HB1851
The following is from a March 11th e-mail sent out by Bill Ball of
Arkansas Renewable Energy Association and a developer of a green subdivision in Central Arkansas.
"Crafting the perfect piece of legislation has perhaps eluded mankind since the dawn of time, and crafting a perfect HB1851 will, I am sure, be no exception. The Bill, as filed, has begun to evolve as a series of compromises. I believe the Bill, as filed, does not include some key elements and considerations that were included in early drafts of this Bill, and I would like to focus on those key elements and the logic that compels them to be considered as we strive to achieve this perfect piece of legislation.
Overall Program Capacity or Energy Caps:
As the initial review by the PSC indicates, the ratepayer impact ranges from .4% to 7.7% depending on limits that might be set for a given percentage of kWh sales or a name plate capacity cap calculated at an assumed capacity factor of 20%. I believe there is a much simpler way to protect the interest of the ratepayers and all parties involved. Let us simply cap the ratepayer impact and proceed to acquire as much name plate capacity or kWh production as our money will buy. In working with the Governor's Climate Commission, I found some consensus around a 3% rate payer impact. This consensus was general in nature and before last year's economic downturn, however, it recognized the necessity to invest in our renewable energy future. Perhaps we need a percentage of a different number, as indicated below.
During the meeting of the Parties on March 10th in room 171 at the state capitol, utilities and industrials were understandably concerned about ratepayer impacts, however, they used “worst case” scenarios of some 7.7% increases of customer bills to estimate costs. ( based on tying the program to a cap on name plate capacity or a cap on MWh of energy to be produced from RE resources, or a 2% of total energy consumption factor and paying 30 plus cents per kWh feed in tariff rates) To the parties I suggest that the devil is in the details and from a letter I distributed in January to most parties I submit the following excerpt, which indicates a method with costs far below those being suggested in yesterday's meeting.........
“Below are some assumptions and calculations based on total electric usage in Arkansas in 2005.
TOTAL ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION (millions kWh) 47,000
TOTAL COST OF GENERATION (assume 2 cents/kWh) $940,000,000
YEARLY 5% COMMITTMENT (available to REFIT) $ 47,000,000
These numbers are representative and five percent of the cost of generation would not equate to a five percent increase in rates across the rate base. “
Based on the example above, the costs of the program would be far less than is being indicated by a “worst case” scenario of some 30 cents per kWh. The wind energy group tells me the number is 7 cents per kWh and one of the bio-mass representatives has told me their number for converting chicken liter to energy is on the order of 12 cents per kWh. While it is true that residential roof top solar requires a higher number to provide a quick return on investment, the actual number needed to attract investment may in fact be much lower and the amount of energy purchased through solar REFIT contracts will be a smaller percent of the overall energy purchased through REFIT contracts. I suggest we agree on an investment we are willing to make rather than a regressive limitation on how much renewable energy we might achieve.
Individual Facility Limit of 1MW:
This limit and other language in the Bill pertaining to contiguous facilities seems to be aimed squarely at limiting Arkansas' ability to attract any large wind producers in the future. With the average utility scale wind machine clocking in at 2MW or more, a limit of 1MW tells the rest of
the world that we are pleased to manufacture components for these machines, but we don't want them in our back yard. And let's not forget our agricultural interest that will also benefit from the expanded avenues of waist to energy that will be supported by REFIT. A low limitation on MW capacity or the inability to operate contiguous facilities does not support the development of Arkansas' biomass resources.
Definition of a Renewable Energy Facility:
The term “non-public utility” was included by error. We all need to participate in developing our renewable energy future, especially our existing utilities. Amended language will reflect this change.
Small Scale Facility Set Aside:
Another feature of early draft legislation that has been mistakenly omitted deals with making sure that a portion of the REFIT contracts are made available to residential and commercial customers. It has been my intent that the Bill provide for Arkansas companies, utilities, agricultural interest, industrial concerns and residents all to be able to enter into a REFIT
contract. We will all be part of the solution. However, if we do not set aside a percentage of contracts for smaller customers, the contracts that will be available could quickly be executed by a handful of larger interest. I suggest a set aside of 20%. This number gives us a handle on what we might expect from what will likely be initially higher priced energy, yet support technologies and distributed generation that is vital to our long term energy security.
I am suggesting to the Bill's sponsors that the appropriate amendments to the Bill are engrossed to address the points and concerns above and hope we can move forward to pass this most important piece of legislation. "
Arkansas Renewable Energy Association and a developer of a green subdivision in Central Arkansas.
"Crafting the perfect piece of legislation has perhaps eluded mankind since the dawn of time, and crafting a perfect HB1851 will, I am sure, be no exception. The Bill, as filed, has begun to evolve as a series of compromises. I believe the Bill, as filed, does not include some key elements and considerations that were included in early drafts of this Bill, and I would like to focus on those key elements and the logic that compels them to be considered as we strive to achieve this perfect piece of legislation.
Overall Program Capacity or Energy Caps:
As the initial review by the PSC indicates, the ratepayer impact ranges from .4% to 7.7% depending on limits that might be set for a given percentage of kWh sales or a name plate capacity cap calculated at an assumed capacity factor of 20%. I believe there is a much simpler way to protect the interest of the ratepayers and all parties involved. Let us simply cap the ratepayer impact and proceed to acquire as much name plate capacity or kWh production as our money will buy. In working with the Governor's Climate Commission, I found some consensus around a 3% rate payer impact. This consensus was general in nature and before last year's economic downturn, however, it recognized the necessity to invest in our renewable energy future. Perhaps we need a percentage of a different number, as indicated below.
During the meeting of the Parties on March 10th in room 171 at the state capitol, utilities and industrials were understandably concerned about ratepayer impacts, however, they used “worst case” scenarios of some 7.7% increases of customer bills to estimate costs. ( based on tying the program to a cap on name plate capacity or a cap on MWh of energy to be produced from RE resources, or a 2% of total energy consumption factor and paying 30 plus cents per kWh feed in tariff rates) To the parties I suggest that the devil is in the details and from a letter I distributed in January to most parties I submit the following excerpt, which indicates a method with costs far below those being suggested in yesterday's meeting.........
“Below are some assumptions and calculations based on total electric usage in Arkansas in 2005.
TOTAL ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION (millions kWh) 47,000
TOTAL COST OF GENERATION (assume 2 cents/kWh) $940,000,000
YEARLY 5% COMMITTMENT (available to REFIT) $ 47,000,000
These numbers are representative and five percent of the cost of generation would not equate to a five percent increase in rates across the rate base. “
Based on the example above, the costs of the program would be far less than is being indicated by a “worst case” scenario of some 30 cents per kWh. The wind energy group tells me the number is 7 cents per kWh and one of the bio-mass representatives has told me their number for converting chicken liter to energy is on the order of 12 cents per kWh. While it is true that residential roof top solar requires a higher number to provide a quick return on investment, the actual number needed to attract investment may in fact be much lower and the amount of energy purchased through solar REFIT contracts will be a smaller percent of the overall energy purchased through REFIT contracts. I suggest we agree on an investment we are willing to make rather than a regressive limitation on how much renewable energy we might achieve.
Individual Facility Limit of 1MW:
This limit and other language in the Bill pertaining to contiguous facilities seems to be aimed squarely at limiting Arkansas' ability to attract any large wind producers in the future. With the average utility scale wind machine clocking in at 2MW or more, a limit of 1MW tells the rest of
the world that we are pleased to manufacture components for these machines, but we don't want them in our back yard. And let's not forget our agricultural interest that will also benefit from the expanded avenues of waist to energy that will be supported by REFIT. A low limitation on MW capacity or the inability to operate contiguous facilities does not support the development of Arkansas' biomass resources.
Definition of a Renewable Energy Facility:
The term “non-public utility” was included by error. We all need to participate in developing our renewable energy future, especially our existing utilities. Amended language will reflect this change.
Small Scale Facility Set Aside:
Another feature of early draft legislation that has been mistakenly omitted deals with making sure that a portion of the REFIT contracts are made available to residential and commercial customers. It has been my intent that the Bill provide for Arkansas companies, utilities, agricultural interest, industrial concerns and residents all to be able to enter into a REFIT
contract. We will all be part of the solution. However, if we do not set aside a percentage of contracts for smaller customers, the contracts that will be available could quickly be executed by a handful of larger interest. I suggest a set aside of 20%. This number gives us a handle on what we might expect from what will likely be initially higher priced energy, yet support technologies and distributed generation that is vital to our long term energy security.
I am suggesting to the Bill's sponsors that the appropriate amendments to the Bill are engrossed to address the points and concerns above and hope we can move forward to pass this most important piece of legislation. "
Steve Shepherd
"If you aren't living on the edge, you're taking up too much space." - Jim Whittaker, first American to summit Mt. Everest.
"If you aren't living on the edge, you're taking up too much space." - Jim Whittaker, first American to summit Mt. Everest.
Social Media
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest