DOE

According to the popular saying—one often bandied about real estate circles; when it comes to deciding where to live there's little else that matters more than location. Soon, however, the criteria for judging the desirability of a particular locale may be getting a little more...specific. We're not just talking about the various and sundry aspirations loosely contained under headings like 'standard of living' or 'quality of life'—in these tough economic times people need to crunch a lot of numbers before making the difficult decision to stay put or uproot. For many, the numbers their local utility companies are coming up with are starting to raise serious concerns. Not only in California (see previous post), but across the country in places like Albuquerque, Central Ohio, West Virginia and Holland, Michigan rates are on the rise. At the rate of 4, 5 and 6 percent, the increases have hardly gone unnoticed. Take, for instance, West Virginia State Treasurer John Perdue's recent speech in which he officially announced his candidacy for Governor of West Virginia:

"Over the past few months, I have listened to many West Virginians about their hopes and dreams," Perdue said. "They want good-paying jobs. They want a better life for their children. They are concerned about skyrocketing utility costs." That's right, for the people of West Virginia utility rates are right up at the top of the priority list alongside the desire for good jobs and good schools. If Perdue is elected, he has promised to "stand up to the utility companies and tell them that their rate increases are crippling both our citizens and our businesses". Easier said than done. West Virginia is the second-largest coal-producing state in the nation—they're also the second-poorest state in the nation. But between the environmental concerns and controversy surrounding mountain-top removal and the looming threat of carbon cap legislature—West Virginians are stuck between a lump of coal and a hard place. This means that state politicians like Perdue may have a much bigger job on their hands than just getting "the fox out of the henhouse".

This week, Chinese news outlet Chinadialogue published an informative article about the future of coal in West Virginia. The article is titled: America's Coal War. To put WV's woes in perspective for the rest of us, the author explains

California's largest electric utility is desperate to slow down a new program that's going to revolutionize the way small businesses pay for their power. The company claims customers need more time to understand 'dynamic' pricing, but higher "time-of-use" rates will mean a new way of doing business for many of California's small business owners.

Consumer advocate groups and The California Small Business Association have come out against the new pricing for electricity, but state regulators have already approved the program. According to the San Francisco Chronicle "PG&E in November will start charging its roughly 500,000 small-business customers different rates for electricity at different times of day. Businesses will also face significantly higher rates on a handful of days each year when power supplies are strained, either by hot weather or problems with the electricity grid."

It should be noted that business owners will be able to "opt out" of the program —for the time being, anyway. According to The Chronicle, "the California Small Business Association has now asked the California Public Utilities Commission, which approved PG&E's program, to slow down the timetable for the changes. And PG&E, to an extent, agrees, arguing that the utility needs more time to educate its customers."

What utilities like PG&E want to "educate" all of us about is the transition to "time-of-use" rates. So what does all of this actually mean? Wikipedia breaks down the different categories of time-based pricing in relation to electricity industry like this:

• time-of-use pricing (TOU pricing)—whereby electricity prices are set for a specific time period on an advance or forward basis, typically not changing more often than twice a year. Prices paid for energy consumed during these periods are pre-established and known to consumers in advance, allowing them to vary their usage in response to such prices and manage their energy costs by shifting usage to a lower cost period or reducing their consumption overall;
• critical peak pricing—whereby time-of-use prices are in effect except for certain peak days, when prices may reflect the costs of generating and/or purchasing electricity at the wholesale level
• real-time pricing (also: dynamic pricing)—whereby electricity prices may change as often as hourly (exceptionally more often). Price signal is provided to the user on an advanced or forward basis, reflecting the utility’s cost of generating and/or purchasing electricity at the wholesale level; and
• peak load reduction credits—for consumers with large loads who enter into pre-established peak load reduction agreements that reduce a utility’s planned capacity obligations.

The Wiki-editors go on to recommend dynamic pricing, saying that "time-based pricing will reflect the price variations on the market. Such variations include both regular oscillations due to the demand pattern of users, supply issues (such as availability of intermittent natural resources: water flow, wind), and occasional exceptional price peaks." The general idea is that dynamic pricing begets consumer response—once people are paying more for electricity depending on when they use it, they tend to pay more attention to their usage. While it may be true that Americans have long enjoyed cheap electric rates in comparison to other countries, but the days of power that's "too cheap to meter" are decidedly coming to an end...

Nuclear reprocessing. You often see it in the news, usually related to what countries are doing it and why. Reprocessing in India and China may get more ink, but the the U.K. & France do far more of it. In the United States, on the other hand, we do not currently reprocess our spent nuclear fuel. So why not? Now that many environmentalists are reevaluating nuclear power (thanks to its status as a low-carbon fuel), many are asking just that: why shouldn't we be recycling this stuff? Almost seems like the least we can do, given the complications of mining and transporting uranium, right?

Not so fast. The fellows at The Union of Concerned Scientists aren't quite so keen on reprocessing. In fact, they're actually quite...concerned about it. As scientists. In their own words, here's what their list of major concerns boils down to:

• Reprocessing would increase the risk of nuclear terrorism.
• Reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation.
• Reprocessing would hurt U.S. nuclear waste management efforts.
• Reprocessing would be very expensive.

Very legitimate-sounding concerns, scary-sounding, even—but not everyone would agree. After all, France and Britain seem to be doing alright and they've been reprocessing for decades. To find out more about the argument for reprocessing, we talked to CEO of Duke Energy (and Beyond the Light Switch expert) Jim Rogers.

Jim Rogers knows energy. Just this past Monday he rolled out plans for a $13.7 billion megadeal that will make Duke Energy the largest electric utility in the nation. So how can he consider something that has raised such serious concerns in the past to now be no different than "recycling"? First, Rogers addressed fears that reprocessing will create a greater risk of nuclear terrorism, saying that he finds it much easier to mitigate the risk of proliferation "in the 

Is Global Climate Change to blame? After reading this story about the thawing of the permafrost layer, BTLS was surprised to learn that not only are falling rocks killing more people each year, the thaw is also jeopardizing their economic infrastructure. The rapidly changing geology of the area has been attributed to global climate change for years now, but that information would be much more useful if everyone could first agree on whether climate change is real or not.

Alas, there has been no agreement. So when the BTLS braintrust heard about melting glaciers spelling real trouble for the Swiss Alps, we decided to investigate a little further. Are a few falling rocks and some melting snow really that big of a problem? For answers we talked to BTLS’s resident artist (and Swiss connection), David Hartwell. And David immediately assured us that, yes, a little melting snow is a very big problem in his native land. How big of a problem is it?

Here are just a few of the pre-emptive measures the Swiss have tried so far:

• They've had to redirect natural gas viaducts because of falling rocks caused by the melting permafrost.
• Banks will not lend money to any resorts situated below 1500 meters due to the uncertainties of snowfall.
• They’ve tried covering glaciers with fleece blankets to limit summer UV exposure so that they will not retreat as fast.
• They’re having to redraw their borders with neighboring countries.
• Swiss villagers have even written to the Pope for help.

The Alpen town of Pontresina gained attention as one of the first places to take  precautions against the melting ice (like building a giant dam). Now they're offering nature hikes that promise to let you walk "in the footsteps of climate change". Still, the fact remains: experts estimate Switzerland will lose 70% of their glaciers within the next thirty years. And attracting some of the first GCC ‘disaster tourists’ seems like a pretty lame consolation prize for the Swiss, considering that they’re not one of the region’s big carbon emitters. David Hartwell tells us that the only leverage the Swiss really have is raising fuel and transit taxes to alleviate their growing climate problem. According to Hartwell, the Swiss have all but given up on the idea of making a dent in global carbon emissions—they’re now in the business of “building rafts and making foreign nations pay for them”. But how?

Electric cars are the way of the future. Or so we’ve heard…for the past twenty years.

Limited speed, higher cost, range anxiety—these are some of the issues that have largely shut electric vehicles out of the U.S. market. But that was then. Now, it’s not just green-minded consumer demand that’s ramping up—GM, Daimler and Nissan are all readying their EVs (Electric Vehicles) for mass production. Given the long-standing concerns surrounding this perennially futuristic technology, it’s logical that the idea of American’s ‘making the switch’ to electric cars en masse raises a host of concerns. Near the top of the list: would our existing power grid be able meet demand? Could plugging in that many plug-ins cause a blackout? In order to find out, the BTLS brain trust went to the energy experts on our Board of Advisors and posed the following question:

If the electric car penetration into the market place exceeds all hopes, and we have entire towns or cities plugging in at night, is the current state of our grid able to handle this new load? What if it’s August 12, 100 degrees, and everyone plugs in their cars as soon as they arrive at home?