25 petitions

Update posted 3 months ago

Petition to MA Department of Public Utilities

Reject Eversource Rate Increase for Solar Customers

In January 2017, Eversource Energy filed a request to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities to increase electricity distribution rates and change its rate structure that will unnecessarily penalize customers who have or want to install solar. This rate change has to be approved by the MA Department of Public Utilities and we ask the DPU to reject Eversource’s proposal for the following reasons: Eversource’s proposal does not account for the well-documented value solar and distributed generation brings to the grid, ratepayers and our state economy. Study after study has concluded that the economic benefits of net metering actually exceeds retail utility costs. These benefits include: reductions in distribution and transmission losses from an aging grid (distributed generation is provided onsite or nearby), the avoided costs of building new power plants (solar delivers the most electricity in the summer, when needs are highest), and leverage against the financial and environmental risks associated with our dependence on fossil fuels (rates are expected to remain high due to the increased demand and exports of natural gas and the 2016 Porter Ranch disaster made clear that pipelines are not without risk). Commercial and residential customers evaluate the return on investment when deciding to invest in a solar array and the proposed rate changes will severely impact the viability of many new solar projects. In the new structure, solar residential customers who install after January 1, 2018 will be subject to a new monthly minimum charge ($10.83) and a demand charge (approximately $2.11 per kW based on monthly peak power consumption). At a minimum, for the average new solar customer, these changes will add $400 per year in unjustified utility costs that they would not typically have to pay. This will be the first mandatory residential application of demand charges, which are based on monthly peak power consumption, and would be difficult for residents to anticipate or manage. Even commercial customers, which have more energy management tools at their disposal, often struggle to manage and budget for demand charges. It is illogical and unfair to impose these charges solely on net-metered customers. Our understanding is that existing net metering customers will also be moved into this rate structure starting in 2020, based on law Chapter 75 of the Acts of 2016, “An Act Relative to Solar Energy.” We firmly believe that any rate change - monthly minimum and demand charges included - should not single out solar customers who install before the rate change is adopted. These customers should be grandfathered into the current rate structure or treated as non-solar customers if a rate structure change is approved in the future. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made scaling up renewable energy production and encouraging residential energy efficiency to meet the state’s greenhouse gas emission targets central components of its efforts to meet the state’s goals under the Global Warming Solutions Act. At this time, the goal should be the continued expansion of the base of renewable energy production, not penalizing such customers with unjustified changes in the rate structure. We urge the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities to reject Eversource Energy’s proposal and ensure any future rate changes account for the value solar customers add to the electricity grid.

Jillian Wilson
301 supporters
Started 4 months ago

Petition to Jerry Brown, SCE: Southern California Edison, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), California Coastal Commission (CCC), United States Department Of Energy

NUCLEAR-WASTE near the BEACH? You heard right...

In October of 2015, the California Coastal Commission, an entity meant to keep our coasts and ocean safe, granted Southern California Edison (SCE) a permit to bury their Nuclear-Waste on a stretch of beach between Oceanside and San Clemente (in San Diego and Orange Counties). This area is located on two fault lines, and it is not a question of IF there will be a major earthquake in this region but WHEN... The probability of a major earthquake in this area is inevitable and may be sooner than one may think As you likely know, radioactive-waste is deadly to humans and wildlife... including marine-life in the ocean, where the deadly-plume would not be contained. Much of Southern California would become uninhabitable and beach-towns would become ghost-towns up and down the coast (including Mexico). NUCLEAR-WASTE IS TOXIC FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, and it would not discriminate between the wealthy, healthy, sick and poor. Everyone would be affected!  Earthquakes are not the only concern. Public Watchdogs, a non-profit organization in San Diego, says the containers in which the nuclear-waste would be stored are only guaranteed for 25 years. However, failure has occurred in as little as 17 years in similar containers (and environment) Although considering the fault system, an earthquake could rupture them sooner. In a press release by Public Watchdogs they state,“On January 13, 2018, Southern California Edison will bury the radioactive (waste) equivalent of 700 nuclear warheads on the beach at San Onofre State Beach Park within 108 feet of the water. Each of the 75 waste containers holds more radiation than what was released at Chernobyl. When it is completed, it will be the world’s largest beachfront nuclear waste dump.” Ray Lutz, from Citizens Oversight, Inc. adds, this site is “only inches over the high-tide water mark... in an tsunami zone and poised as a prime terrorist target,” Citizens Oversight, Inc. filed a lawsuit in October 2015 to block the permit in Superior Court. Lutz states, “The latest is that a week before the April 14, 2017 hearing, SCE agreed to enter settlement talks. We now have a chance to block this insanity.” The new court date is scheduled for July 14, 2017. Recently, SCE claimed burying 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste at San Onfre as a reasonable and safe option. They are now in negotiations with Citizens Oversight, Inc. and Patricia Borchmann (represented by Aguirre & Severson LLP). In a document written by Patricia Borchmann in 2015, she addresses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and states, "In 2012, a federal circuit court agreed with Attorney General Schneiderman that federal law requires NRC to complete a thorough analysis of public health, safety and environmental hazards such storage would pose before allowing long-term storage of nuclear waste in communities. In reaching its decision, the circuit court found the spent nuclear fuel stored on-site at nuclear power plants 'poses a dangerous, long-term health and environmental risk.'" Borchmann also makes reference to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in this document Gary Headrick, of San Clemente Green located in Orange County, seemingly points out the obvious, "The most serious concern of all, is that we continue to produce nuclear waste when there is no permanent repository." Taking it one step further... It is time to stop producing deadly-waste that will be on this planet long after our species and may be the cause of ending humankind's existence, as well as the extinction of other species on earth. It is absolute madness! THE TIME FOR SAFE, CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY IS NOW!! The practice of choosing profits over people and the environment must end. This behavior must go extinct before we do.  Let's Keep Pressure on Southern California Edison, the California Coastal Commission, Governor Jerry Brown, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Department of Energy, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to do what is SANE and revoke the permit and find a safer site to store this nuclear-waste.

Laura Lee
218 supporters
Started 5 months ago

Petition to NEVADA LEGISLATURE, Governor Sandoval

Lead Nevada to 100% Clean Energy

Nevada receives enough sunshine that we could power the entire US electrical grid. However, 90% of the energy we consume in Nevada comes from fossil fuels imported from outside the state. Each year, we spend $8 billion importing fossil fuels. This is twice as much as we spend on K-12 education! 100% clean energy will retain $8 billion in the Nevada economy each year, and create more than 50,000 jobs statewide. This will help Nevada families to save money on their energy bills every month. 100% clean energy will reduce our statewide greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80%, and significantly reduce air pollution and smog. Please demonstrate national leadership, and lead Nevada to 100% clean energy across all sectors, including buildings and transportation, by 2040! For more information, watch the video at: Sources: 2014 fossil fuel imports: $8,149,000,000 (US Energy Information Administration): 2014 Education Spending: $3,863,473,000                + 2014 enrollment: 459,172 students:                + 2014 spending: $8,414/student: Nevada greenhouse gas emissions:

Powered by Sunshine
90 supporters