Drop any fears the light bulb police might be peeking in your windows or pounding on the door New Year's Day searching for energy-hungry incandescents.
Energy Minister Chris Bentley confirmed Wednesday that Ontario is scrapping a five-year-old promise to make it "lights out" for incandescent bulbs in 2012 by banning stores from selling them.
He blamed a recent federal government decision to delay new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs until Jan. 1, 2014, when it will become illegal to import inefficient incandescent lighting across the country.
"Did it make sense for us to have a different approach from the federal government on this issue? No," Bentley said.
"Our thinking is how do we make it easiest for consumers. It would be hard and confusing to do it differently."
The Star first reported on Saturday that the Ontario promise, made by former energy minister Dwight Duncan in 2007, was in jeopardy because of the federal move.
But postponing the incandescent ban for two years will just make it harder for the province to meet its energy conservation targets already under fire by Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller, said New Democrat environment critic Peter Tabuns.
"In keeping with the season, this is a lump of coal," said the MPP for Toronto-Danforth, noting that the new compact fluorescent bulbs use less than half the electricity of incandescent bulbs.
Ottawa changed its plans to "allow for innovations in technology" and to improve recycling options for new energy-efficient bulbs, which last far longer and use less electricity than incandescents, but contain mercury.
That means consumers should be disposing of compact fluorescent bulbs in hazardous waste dumps, as they would with old paint and other toxic household substances, said Bentley.
The two-year reprieve for the incandescents ban will give governments time to come up with a "better approach" for disposing of compact fluorescents, he added.
Also in 2014, energy efficiency levels will be increased for 100- and 75-watt light bulbs, with higher levels expected for 60- and 40-watt bulbs by the end of that year.
Banning incandescent bulbs was intended as an energy conservation measure and to ease pressure on energy ratepayers because building new electricity plants, green power and infrastructure is costly.
Under political pressure from opposition parties over rising electricity prices caused by upgrading the provincial power system, Premier Dalton McGuinty's government last year brought in a 10 per cent cut on residential, farm and small business electric bills called the Clean Energy Benefit.
But taxpayers are still paying the cost of that break on their bills, because it costs the provincial treasury more than $1 billion annually at a time when the government is running a $16 billion deficit.
As well, Bentley has still not said how much it will cost taxpayers for cancelled power plants in Oakville and Mississauga.
Showing posts with label domestic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic. Show all posts
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Thursday, 8 December 2011
PSC to decide suitability of FirstEnergy energy efficiency plan
The energy efficiency and conservation programs proposed by Monongahela Power and Potomac Edison could be stronger, some argued Dec. 1–2 at an evidentiary hearing of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia.
A Phase I Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan proposed by the FirstEnergy West Virginia operating companies has two parts: a residential low-income program and a high-efficiency lighting program for commercial, government and industrial customers.
The utility filed the plan in March for approval by the PSC, as mandated in 2010 stipulations in a rate case and in the commission order approving the merger between Allegheny Energy and FirstEnergy.
The Phase I energy efficiency and conservation plan specifically aims to reduce total system demand by 0.5 percent from the 2009 level of about 13,300 gigawatt-hours and to reduce system peak demand by 0.5 percent from the 2009 level of 2,723 megawatts.
Reductions would come through light bulb, faucet aerator and shower head replacements in low-income homes — those within 200 percent of the federal poverty level — along with refrigerator replacements for those that qualify and partial energy audits. At the commercial and industrial level, the program proposes high-efficiency lighting.
The energy reduction target would be reached in five years.
Parties to the case testified during a span of two days. Intervenors included the commission's Consumer Advocate Division, the West Virginia Energy Users Group of large industrial electricity users and the West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
WVCAG wants to see a stronger energy reduction plan that would include building shell measures such as weather stripping and a blower door or other leak test.
"The proposed efficiency target is far weaker than FirstEnergy efficiency goals in other states, which include a 1 percent savings in two years and 0.8 percent savings in two years in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively," said Mike Harman, a spokesperson for Energy Efficient West Virginia, of which WVCAG is a lead member, after the hearing.
Intervenors also noted that energy efficiency measures offered by AEP companies Appalachian Power Co. and Wheeling Power Co. are stronger.
Edward C. Miller, manager of development and compliance for FirstEnergy, said the company designed its programs to minimize cost impacts. The components were chosen to complement the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity's low-income weatherization program, he said, although he conceded that that program is known to have a large backlog.
The five-year time frame was then calculated based on the utility's experience with participation in such programs, Miller said.
"Wouldn't you normally set out to design a plan that was the most effective, rather than meeting the stipulation?" asked PSC Chairman Michael Albert, referencing the 2010 cases that mandated the plan.
A Phase I Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan proposed by the FirstEnergy West Virginia operating companies has two parts: a residential low-income program and a high-efficiency lighting program for commercial, government and industrial customers.
The utility filed the plan in March for approval by the PSC, as mandated in 2010 stipulations in a rate case and in the commission order approving the merger between Allegheny Energy and FirstEnergy.
The Phase I energy efficiency and conservation plan specifically aims to reduce total system demand by 0.5 percent from the 2009 level of about 13,300 gigawatt-hours and to reduce system peak demand by 0.5 percent from the 2009 level of 2,723 megawatts.
Reductions would come through light bulb, faucet aerator and shower head replacements in low-income homes — those within 200 percent of the federal poverty level — along with refrigerator replacements for those that qualify and partial energy audits. At the commercial and industrial level, the program proposes high-efficiency lighting.
The energy reduction target would be reached in five years.
Parties to the case testified during a span of two days. Intervenors included the commission's Consumer Advocate Division, the West Virginia Energy Users Group of large industrial electricity users and the West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
WVCAG wants to see a stronger energy reduction plan that would include building shell measures such as weather stripping and a blower door or other leak test.
"The proposed efficiency target is far weaker than FirstEnergy efficiency goals in other states, which include a 1 percent savings in two years and 0.8 percent savings in two years in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively," said Mike Harman, a spokesperson for Energy Efficient West Virginia, of which WVCAG is a lead member, after the hearing.
Intervenors also noted that energy efficiency measures offered by AEP companies Appalachian Power Co. and Wheeling Power Co. are stronger.
Edward C. Miller, manager of development and compliance for FirstEnergy, said the company designed its programs to minimize cost impacts. The components were chosen to complement the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity's low-income weatherization program, he said, although he conceded that that program is known to have a large backlog.
The five-year time frame was then calculated based on the utility's experience with participation in such programs, Miller said.
"Wouldn't you normally set out to design a plan that was the most effective, rather than meeting the stipulation?" asked PSC Chairman Michael Albert, referencing the 2010 cases that mandated the plan.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Foreign buyers dominate coffee industry
The market for Viet Nam's unprocessed coffee beans could become dominated by foreign companies, according to leading exporters who spoke at a recent meeting held in HCM City.
Foreigners bought 50 per cent of raw coffee from the 2010 and 2011 crops, according to participants.
They took Dak Lak Province which is the country's biggest coffee producers as an example. They said local coffee farmer harvested 400,000 tonnes in the 2010-11 crop, 180,000 tonnes of which were bought by foreign companies for their export plans.
The situation would likely be more serious in the next crop since foreign companies often double the volume they planned to buy every year. Consequently, domestic enterprises now must face a serious shortage of raw coffee for export, they said.
Do Quyet, deputy general director of Dak Lak September 2nd Import-Export Company, said his company purchased 100,000 tonnes of coffee in the last crop, but it expected to buy only 50,000 or 60,000 tonnes in this crop.
A representative of the Tay Nguyen Coffee Investment, Import and Export Joint Stock Company also revealed that the company had to lower its export target from 140,000 tonnes of coffee to 100,000 tonnes this year because of a shortage of raw material.
The meeting heard many reasons raised by coffee exporters to explain foreign companies'market domination.
One of foreign companies'advantages was their strong financial potential. They could get access to low interest loans while they were able to directly sell coffee products on the London Trading Floor, which can enable them to offer attractive prices for local farmers to buy raw coffee, they said.
Worse still, inconsistent legal positions also created opportunity for foreign companies to conquer the domestic raw material coffee market.
Nguyen Toan Thang, an official of the Dak Lak Planning and Investment Department, said the Trade Law and Decree No 23/2007/ND-CP did not allow foreign companies to directly buy commodities from producers. Meanwhile, the Investment Law did not ban this practice.
Consequently, many foreign companies had set up networks to directly purchase raw material coffee from local farmers, he said.
Foreigners bought 50 per cent of raw coffee from the 2010 and 2011 crops, according to participants.
They took Dak Lak Province which is the country's biggest coffee producers as an example. They said local coffee farmer harvested 400,000 tonnes in the 2010-11 crop, 180,000 tonnes of which were bought by foreign companies for their export plans.
The situation would likely be more serious in the next crop since foreign companies often double the volume they planned to buy every year. Consequently, domestic enterprises now must face a serious shortage of raw coffee for export, they said.
Do Quyet, deputy general director of Dak Lak September 2nd Import-Export Company, said his company purchased 100,000 tonnes of coffee in the last crop, but it expected to buy only 50,000 or 60,000 tonnes in this crop.
A representative of the Tay Nguyen Coffee Investment, Import and Export Joint Stock Company also revealed that the company had to lower its export target from 140,000 tonnes of coffee to 100,000 tonnes this year because of a shortage of raw material.
The meeting heard many reasons raised by coffee exporters to explain foreign companies'market domination.
One of foreign companies'advantages was their strong financial potential. They could get access to low interest loans while they were able to directly sell coffee products on the London Trading Floor, which can enable them to offer attractive prices for local farmers to buy raw coffee, they said.
Worse still, inconsistent legal positions also created opportunity for foreign companies to conquer the domestic raw material coffee market.
Nguyen Toan Thang, an official of the Dak Lak Planning and Investment Department, said the Trade Law and Decree No 23/2007/ND-CP did not allow foreign companies to directly buy commodities from producers. Meanwhile, the Investment Law did not ban this practice.
Consequently, many foreign companies had set up networks to directly purchase raw material coffee from local farmers, he said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)