Direct Testimony of Thomas M. Hildebrand - Consumer Advocate ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE STATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCORECARD FOR 2006 Maggie Eldridge, Bill Prindle, Dan York, and Steve Nadel June 2007 Report Number E075 OAmerican Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 801, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429-8873 phone, (202) 429-2248 fax, htt~e:/iaceee.org
The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006. ACEEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY More and more states are turning to enera effciencJ- as the "first fuel'' in the race for clean and secure energy resources. In their commitments to advance energy efficiency policies and programs, they are outpacing the federal go\;emment by a ividening margin. States now spend about three times as much on energy efficiency programs as the federal goi.emment. and are leading the way on appliance standards, building codes. energy efficiency resource standards. and other lie!. policies that drive energy efficiency investment. In this era of state pre-eminence? it is important to document best practices and recopize leadership among the states, so that other states follow, and to encourage federal action to catch up. Toward that end. ACEEE developed this report as a comprehensive ranking of state energ. efficient!. policies and identified exemplary programs and policies n-ithin each polic?. categon.. The report ranks states based on their progress in eight energ efficiency policy categones: 1. Spending on Utilih and Public Benefits Enera Efficiency Programs 2. Energ Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) 3. Combined Heat and Pokver (CHP) 4. Building Energ? Codes 5. Transportation Policies 6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards 7. Tas 1ncentii.es 8. State Lead b! Example and Research & Deyelopment Summaiy of Rmkings Table ES-1 contains a summan. ranking of the states on the eight policy categories included in this study. The "top ten'' states. based on their combined scores. are: 1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie) 4. Massachusetts 5. Oregon 6. Washington 7. New York 8. Nen- Jerse!. 9. Rhode Island. Minnesota (tie) The top ten states earn scores between 20 and 33 out of a possible 44 points, and the next fifteen states' scores trail fsurly moderately behind all score more than 10 points, up to 17 5 points The bottom 26 states. howe5er. senousl) lag behind the other states. scoring betlieen 0 5 and 10 points .., 111
Page 1 and 2:
THOMAS M. HILDEBRAND 7336 Sheraton
Page 3 and 4:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 5 and 6:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 7 and 8:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 9 and 10:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 11 and 12:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 13 and 14:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 15 and 16:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7) The TrAILCo applicat
Page 17 and 18:
~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Page 19 and 20:
1 Q. WHAT ABOUT NEW GENERATION THAT
Page 21 and 22:
1 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Page 23 and 24:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 25 and 26:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 27 and 28:
THOMAS RI. HILDEBRAND Lieutenant Co
Page 29 and 30:
? c 1600 LAIDLEYTOWER * EO. BOX 553
Page 31 and 32:
BEFORE THE PEWSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILI
Page 33 and 34:
111. Conclusion WHEREFORE, the Offc
Page 35 and 36:
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Com
Page 37 and 38:
_,--I_- -I Trans-Allegheny Intersta
Page 39 and 40:
1 INTRODUCTION The Commonwealth of
Page 41 and 42:
Exhibit 5. Estimated Peak Demand (M
Page 43 and 44:
O h Load Red1 tion in the Top 100 H
Page 45 and 46: 6 How Dominion and Allegheny Power
Page 47 and 48: 2 Section 1: Int7.oduction and Conc
Page 49 and 50: possible overloads of the Pruntytow
Page 51 and 52: 6 Section 2: 7Vhj do Don ii io Alle
Page 53 and 54: demand growth will not be moderated
Page 55 and 56: north of Washington DC. Most of the
Page 57 and 58: ~~ ~~~ h 12 centers nd 0th r demand
Page 59 and 60: 14 Section 5: Did they find the Bes
Page 61 and 62: 16 This flagrant non sequitur shine
Page 63 and 64: 18 as a whole (but mainly those in
Page 65 and 66: Appendix A: Alternatives to the Loz
Page 67 and 68: 22 Appendix B: Dominion 5 Analysis
Page 69 and 70: Ronnie BaileylCOMMOPSNANCPOW ER 051
Page 71 and 72: i Friday, January 26, 2007 Part II
Page 73 and 74: 3920 Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No.
Page 75 and 76: 3922 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No
Page 77: il ...:"#(;R,3,yn!.,!:\
Page 80 and 81: Figure 1. Organization of entities
Page 82 and 83: VI. Energy and Water Management __.
Page 84: (7) Energy Purchasing. Agencies sho
Page 87 and 88: PjM, New York, and New England) aio
Page 90 and 91: Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2
Page 92 and 93: I. INTRODUCTION The Department of D
Page 94 and 95: _ .I._. Back to the previous pa ...
Page 98 and 99: The State Energ) Efficiency Scoreca
Page 100 and 101: The State Energy Efficiencx Scoreca
Page 102 and 103: and achievable cosi effective poten
Page 104 and 105: I . --- ...........................
Page 106 and 107: North Anna Power Station Page 2 of
Page 108 and 109: Fredericksburg.com - Dominion to mo
Page 110 and 111: Dominion Seeks Approval for Power S
Page 112 and 113: opinion, a focus group's phrase, an
Page 114 and 115: wy_Jc- f W. Va. 19791 PUBLlC SERViC
Page 116 and 117: Virginia Business Magazine: Virgini
Page 118 and 119: Virginia Business Magazine: Virgini
Page 120 and 121: .. '2 c3 3 iJa e 16 Komr US. Busine
Page 122 and 123: --.% & WEST UIROINIA --.. . Print %
Page 124 and 125: i Keduce CjioDai vvarming raye L VI
Page 126 and 127: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TUESDAY, OCTO
Page 128 and 129: The following eight states joined a
Page 130 and 131: Electric And Magnetic Field (tMk) K
Page 132 and 133: “43 HEAT STORM THANKS-2-2-2 The F
Page 134: FLEX ALERT Save Energy Now! ‘M bK
Page 143 and 144: R&D Critical Needs Dynamic modeling
Page 145 and 146: R&D Top I00 in the World SuperVAR
Page 147 and 148:
From Silicon to Diamonds Chemical V
Page 150 and 151:
U.S. appetite for electricity is =
Page 152 and 153:
' AOOx power density of copper 1 lo
Page 154 and 155:
Buckeye Power, Inc. Non-profit gene
Page 156 and 157:
Demand Response
Page 158 and 159:
Transmission Expansion Drivers Expa
Page 160 and 161:
Economic Expansion Metric 1. Econom
Page 162 and 163:
System Congestion Cost Savings soci
Page 164 and 165:
Potential Beneficiaries Relative be
Page 166 and 167:
- Change in Zonal Load Payment due
Page 168 and 169:
0 bse rvations Difficult to justify
Page 170 and 171:
A few thoughts on demand response r
Page 172 and 173:
Barriers to 0 Traditional retail ra
Page 174:
...--... I. VY, ,““Y I uvvcIllu
Page 177 and 178:
Economic Benefits for Energy Effici
Page 179 and 180:
Established energy efficiency as re
Page 181 and 182:
- i'ciency Can Help Control rowth U
Page 183 and 184:
Energy Efficiency Z2r * Utility fin
Page 185 and 186:
Y STAR 0 ENERGY STAR is a cost-effe
show all

Direct Testimony of Thomas M. Hildebrand - Consumer Advocate ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?