Petition to Donald Trump
Tell Trump To #ActOnClimate
President-elect Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax, vowed to dismantle America's climate and clean energy policies, and appointed climate deniers with ties to the fossil fuel industry to his transition team and Cabinet. There is too much at stake for us to stay silent. Human-caused climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety. That's why we and over 800 of our colleagues, all of whom work on climate, energy, or Earth science, have written an open letter (read here) urging Donald Trump to take 6 key steps to address climate change: 1) Make America a clean energy leader.2) Reduce carbon pollution and America's dependence on fossil fuels.3) Enhance America's climate preparedness and resilience.4) Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat.5) Protect scientific integrity in policymaking.6) Uphold America's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. Please join us in urging President-elect Trump to #ActOnClimate by signing this petition. Thank you, Dr. Suzanne P. Anderson, Professor of Geography, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado at Boulder Dr. Catherine Gautier, Professor Emerita, Department of Geography, University of California Santa Barbara Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University Dr. Dan Kammen, Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Science Envoy, US State Department Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University Dr. R. Pamela Reid, Professor of Marine Geosciences, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami Dr. Cindy Shellito, Professor of Meteorology, University of Northern Colorado Dr. Richard C. J. Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego Dr. Sarah Ann Woodin, Carolina Distinguished Professor Emerita, Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina
Petition to Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor, Wisconsin State Senate, Wisconsin State House, Tammy Baldwin, Ron Johnson, Jim Sensenbrenner, Julie Lassa, Gwen Moore, Ron Kind, Mark Pocan, Sean Duffy, Adam Neylon, Reid Ribble, Scott Fitzgerald, Jennifer Shilling, Alberta Darling, Thomas Tiffany, Lena Taylor, Luther Olsen, Mark Miller, Robert Wirch, Leah Vukmir, Glenn Grothman, Robin Vos, Sheila Harsdorf, John Nygren, Alvin Ott, Andy Jorgensen
Break up Wisconsin Electricity Monopoly: Promote Competition for Cheaper Electricity!
Wisconsin has a private monopoly utility structure that is failing to provide its ratepayers with competitive rates. Wisconsin overpays for electricity by 20%. We are proposing opening up the Wisconsin energy market to retail electric competition. Retail choice means: More competition, lower price Ability to lock in rates with fixed prices Greater price transparency Complete renewables options When this becomes available in Wisconsin, each business and household will have the opportunity to review prices and packages from a number of different providers and select the one that best fits their energy needs -- exactly like choosing a cell phone provider. We petition for: Retail choice: Electric competition to drive down rates for end users. Unbundled billing: See line by line what you actually pay for. Visit WisconsinPowerToChoose.org or our Facebook site for more information.
Petition to Peter Elwell, Kate O'Connor
End Brattleboro's Municipal Use of Heating Oil
Each year the Town of Brattleboro buys about 80,000 gallons of heating oil for it's municipal buildings. This annual purchase results in about 800 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Want to know more? Watch this 7min video presentation given by Daniel Quipp of 350 Brattleboro. The town officially acknowledged the problem of climate change with a resolution passed in 2002, however it has been slow to act. Help the Town Manager and Selectboard understand that you want to see changes to how the Town's buildings are heated (for example, efficient wood pellet boilers, air/ground source heat pumps, air source water heaters, renewable energy) in order to reduce the town's greenhouse gas emissions and use our tax dollars in a forward thinking way. Making investments in reducing our fossil fuel use makes sense economically as oil prices can fluctuate wildly and will save the Town money in the long term. Reducing our fossil fuel use is also the right thing to do in terms of our responsibility for protecting a livable climate.
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.
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 https://sanonofresafety.org/earthquake-and-tsunami-risks/. 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) https://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/. 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 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1332/ML13323C022.pdf. 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.
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: www.poweredbysunshine.org Sources: 2014 fossil fuel imports: $8,149,000,000 (US Energy Information Administration): https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=NV#ConsumptionExpenditures 2014 Education Spending: $3,863,473,000 + 2014 enrollment: 459,172 students: http://www.doe.nv.gov/DataCenter/Enrollment/ + 2014 spending: $8,414/student: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html Nevada greenhouse gas emissions: https://ndep.nv.gov/docs_13/ghg_report_2012.pdf