SNEW is claiming that a CL & P feeder line is down and that their crews are working on it. Of course this is what they put on their recorded message, not a web site update or txt message Twitter status or facebook alert.

This is also the same excuse they used for the May 2010 power outage. Now after all that upgrading C L & P has done, the years of torn up roads, and we still have this? And why us the third taxing district never claiming that C L & P feeder lines are down?

South Norwalk deserves better.

According to the recorded message expect power back after 1 am.

from a press release:

MALLOY RESPONDS TO DPUC DRAFT DECISION ON RATE HIKE

June 14, 2010 – Dan Malloy, the Democratic Party’s endorsed candidate for Governor, today responded to the Department of Public Utility Control’s draft decision to reduce Connecticut Light & Power’s requested rate increase by nearly half, to less than 14 percent.  In recent months Malloy has spoken out against the proposed rate increases, and has called for a comprehensive statewide effort to promote energy efficiency, lower consumption, invest in renewable energy, and drive down electricity prices.  A final decision from DPUC is expected at the end of the month.

Said Malloy:

“This is a decent start, but I will continue to urge DPUC to deny CL&P’s requested increase outright.  At a time when Connecticut consumers are paying the highest electric rates in the continental United States we simply should not allow CL&P to overburden them further.

“The fact is, DPUC shouldn’t even be in a position where it has to make this choice.  Connecticut’s energy crisis is due to years and years of inaction from state leadership that has allowed our energy usage and costs to spiral out of control. That lack of planning is costing us jobs by driving out businesses that refuse to pay exorbitant energy costs, and it is suffocating consumers already struggling to make ends meet.  As Governor, I’ll make energy efficiency and consumption hallmarks of my effort to make Connecticut a more competitive, more business-friendly, and more affordable place to live.”

Malloy recently put forth his ideas for addressing the state’s energy needs, which can be viewed at www.danmalloy.com/policy/energy.

from a press release:

Governor Rell Says “No!” To Clean Energy

Statement of Environment Connecticut Program Director Christopher Phelps on Governor Rell’s Veto of SB 493, An Act Reducing Electricity Costs and Promoting Renewable Energy

West Hartford, CT – In her February budget address to the legislature, Governor Rell said, “Kermit the Frog had it wrong all these years, I’m afraid. It is easy to be green. Solar, fuel cells, wind turbines and geothermal – all hold the keys to economic and energy prosperity.” Less than twelve hours after making that statement, the Governor quietly proposed gutting Connecticut’s ratepayer-supported clean energy and energy efficiency funds. Then today, Governor Rell bowed to pressure from utilities and big energy companies and vetoed the clean energy bill passed by the legislature earlier this month. (SB 493.)

Apparently Kermit was right after all. It isn’t easy being green.

The clean energy bill vetoed by Governor Rell would be a huge step towards a cleaner, more efficient and more affordable energy future for Connecticut. The bill brought together some of the best energy proposals debated by the legislature over the course of the last two years. It included a proposal first made by Governor Rell herself in 2007 to streamline the state’s myriad energy planning and policy entities by bringing them together under one energy authority tasked with implementing a more affordable and cleaner energy policy for the state. It combined this good idea with expansion of the clean energy technologies such as solar, wind power, fuel cells, and energy efficiency that do indeed “hold the keys to economic and energy prosperity.”

Unfortunately, Governor Rell has lost the keys.

The Governor’s action means Connecticut’s energy future will be dirtier, less efficient, and more expensive. It means less clean energy, and more global warming pollution. It will cost Connecticut jobs in solar and other clean energy businesses, and it hamstrings efforts to cut energy bills and put money back in the pockets of families and businesses.

It is outrageous that Governor Rell has chosen to stand with dirty oil and big energy companies by vetoing the clean energy bill. We urge the legislature to stand with Connecticut’s environment, families and clean energy entrepreneurs and take action this year to get Connecticut back on track towards a cleaner, more efficient, and more affordable energy future.

The Connecticut Science Center in Hartford moved toward power self-sufficiency Thursday when it received a fuel cell to generate electricity.

Constructed in South Windsor, Conn., by United Technologies Corporation’s UTC Power group, the device will produce 200 kilowatts of electricity when it’s installation is complete; enough to meet two-thirds of the center’s daytime power needs. Overnight, when the center’s power demand drops, the fuel cell will feed energy into the power grid.

The nearly 40,000 pound fuel cell was lifted off a flatbed trailer using a crane from Summit Crane Co. in Terryville, Conn. The crane had a capacity of 150 tons.

�The cell will be�fueled with natural gas, but�will not use combustion. Instead, the gas undergoes an electrochemical process that produces direct current electricity, heat and water.

At noon Thursday a crane was used to lift the nearly 40,000 pound fuel cell off a flatbed trailer�and place it on a concrete�pad�outside the center. The center’s publicist, Edward Main, said it could take up to two months to complete the unit’s installation.

An overview page�provided by UTC Power said it has installed more than 260 stationary fuel cells in 19 countries on five continents. A fact sheet from the center said employing the fuel cell will avoid the annual release of more than 270 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Employees of Keeney Rigging and Trucking in Glastonbury positioned the fuel cell as it was lowered onto a concrete pad outside the Science Center.

The center’s 154,000-square-foot building at 250 Columbus Blvd. opened in June. It’s adjacent to the Connecticut Convention Center and the Hartford Marriott Hotel.

The center’s web site says it was built “GREEN from the ground up,” and is projected to receive a LEED-certified rating from the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED stands for Leadership in��Energy and Environmental Design, and LEED awards are given to projects that show a high level of commitment to sustainability through design and operation.

Stamford Mayor and Democratic Gubernatorial front-runner Dan Malloy was invited to the White House along with about 80 municipal executives from across the country to discuss with the President implementation of the stimulus moneys just passed and signed into law.

Excerpt:

“We have urban areas — Stamford, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven — that are job-producing centers,” Malloy said. “We need to get the money quickly.”

Malloy said Obama has delivered on his pledge to work with mayors by including them in the economic recovery bill. Money is available for weatherization, community policing, schools and road repairs. But much of it will have to pass through the state first — and that worries Malloy. “A lot depends on whether Connecticut state government can do its job and get the money in our hands. My fear is they won’t,” he said. Malloy … sees a potential conflict between the governor’s office and state legislature over how to disburse the stimulus funds.

Malloy said Friday his primary focus is on securing funds for a waste-to-energy plant that will generate 17.5 megawatts of energy from the by-product of effluent. “I spoke to [Energy Secretary Steven Chu] about the waste-to-energy project. I’m very proud of it,” he said.

Malloy said he left the meeting feeling upbeat.

“The last eight years was roughly the equivalent of 40 years in the desert,” Malloy said. “This is the first time I’ve been back to the White House since Clinton was president.” Malloy said the Bush administration would turn to the governor to see their input, but Clinton and Obama see mayors as their allies.

Source: Peter Urban, The Stamford Advocate, Malloy: Cities need money more quickly. Continue Reading

On November 4 gas cost me $2.499; five days later on the 9th $2.369; a drop of $.13, $0.026 per day.

I paid $1.969 for gas yesterday, November 22. Seven days ago I filled up at $2.239 per gallon. That’s $0.26, or about $0.037 per day. It seemed like the prices were changing by the hour late this week.

So prices dropped $0.53 or 21.21% in 18 days – a monthly rate of 35.4%.

According to CNN, the last time we saw prices like these was early March 2005, almost four years ago, and we could see them fall to $1.75 or further before they stabilize.

What is going on out there with fuel prices? How much are you paying for propane, natural gas, heating oil, electricity, and gasoline? What kinds of changes have you experienced? Continue Reading

We need to make a strategic commitment to alternatives that address the many-faceted problems that now attend our economy and national security policy – oriented around the premise and necessity of inexpensive hydrocarbons – at their root.

Drilling is not going to effectively address this pitch, as three decades in pursuit of that national energy, industrial, and security strategy has demonstrated. It was arguably the best strategy while we were the global geopolitical, economic, and military hegemon (with apologies to the Soviet Union, which in the end was revealed as principally but a foil for the American military-industrial complex).

The cost of “petrol” in Europe is considerably higher than in the US. For example, using an average price per liter in July of USD1.0866 in the US, the equivalent amount of fuel in Western Europe was a bit higher than USD2.263, allowing for the weak dollar. Imagine what would happen here if gasoline were to rise to nearly nine bucks a gallon! Yet Europe is not a smoldering ruin. The reason is that the economy isn’t predicated on gas at prices so low that only oil-producing dictatorships offer it cheaper.

The reality is that demand for petroleum in the United States is heavily subsidized. Road building and maintenance are funded by property taxes at the local level; income and sales taxes subsidize road construction and maintenance at the state level; income taxes subsidize roads at the federal level. The interstate highway system subsidizes the trucking industry and that subsidy is passed along to the distribution network and the manufacturers and importers and exporters who rely on it. Our need and ability to provide the petroleum companies with strong positions in the global petroleum industry is massively subsidized by our ability to project military power from Groton, Newport News, San Diego and Seattle to the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Caspian Basin.

Petroleum is a global commodity priced principally in dollars. Subscribers to the supply-side school of economics know that it argues that increasing the supply and lowering the price of a product increases demand, right?

So drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas is not going to alleviate the problem. At best, it will have a marginal impact on the price at some point in the future.

Incidentally, nobody is talking about dropping an oil derrick in Long Island Sound. Did the title hit your NIMBY button?
Continue Reading

The Courant today delves into what is hampering even more envirnmental success at cleaning our air and water. It’s soylent green! Yep, people are the ones dragging the whole progress thing down. What a surprise. They report, you discuss, especially in light of recent claims made about trash contracts and recycling:

Although anti-pollution laws have gone a long way toward cleaning up the state’s air and water, a new report says that solving some of the more intractable environmental problems won’t happen unless residents change how they live.

Despite the steadily rising cost of gasoline and electricity, commuters and homeowners do not appear to be stepping up to the plate, according to a report issued Wednesday by the Council on Environmental Quality.

“We’re looking more at lifestyle changes vs. statutory changes,” said Thomas Harrison, chairman of the state advisory group.

For example:

Related links
Connecticut’s Environment Report Photos
Connecticut’s Environment: A Report Card

� Connecticut drivers, on average, drove more miles in 2007 than the year before, which could wind up offsetting efforts to cut the state’s output of greenhouse gases associated with global warming.

� Recycling rates in 2007 declined — again. The state already had failed to meet a goal of recycling 40 percent of solid waste by 2000.

“The consequences have been enormous,” the report says. “Hundreds of thousands of tons of waste are shipped out of state each year, putting thousands of diesel trucks on the highways for trips of many hundred miles.”

That means more traffic and more air pollution.

� Most appliances bought in Connecticut are not energy-efficient models, even though residents could cut electricity use by purchasing Energy Star-certified refrigerators and other devices.

By persuading more people to do so, “Connecticut could see a noticeable improvement in the use of energy,” Harrison said. That, too, would help the state meet long-term goals that can contribute to the battle against climate change.

The annual report card on the environment found several reasons to crow, including the cleanest air in decades, continued improvement in cutting back nitrogen releases into Long Island Sound from sewage treatment plants and a drop in overall greenhouse gas emissions.

On the wildlife front, the state is now home to 15 pairs of nesting bald eagles — a substantial victory that reflects decades of effort to clean contaminants such as the insecticide DDT out of the food chain.

But for every gain, the report found nagging problems, some of which threaten to undermine progress already made.

Businesses succeeded in becoming more productive while cutting electricity use, but homeowners consumed more. Upgraded sewage treatment plants helped reduce excessive nutrients flowing into the Sound, but storm-water runoff from sprawling development adds to the problem.

“Connecticut residents will fail to meet several important environmental goals, including those for land conservation and waste recycling, unless we make a more earnest effort,” the report concludes.

The final grade for 2007?

About a C-plus, said Harrison, who spoke about the report at a press conference in the state Capitol on Wednesday.

I’ll sum up, residents must drive less, recycle more and use less electricity. Now, wasn’t the whole point of going with City Carting the ability to recycle more?

source: Courant, Report: Solving State’s Tough Environmental Problems Requires Lifestyle Changes
By DAVID FUNKHOUSER, June 26, 2008

The Hour leads today with a story about the rising costs of food, and the impact it will have on the school lunch programs. The other elephant in the room is the higher energy costs that will be a bigger hit. With no new finance person, or I should say, since the Norwalk Public Schools never had a real high level finance person, no financial operations planner, the impact in the next 5 years will be really significant.

Already the� BOE budget is suffocating the average tax payer in Norwalk, so it is of utmost importance that the BOE and Corda look to staff position that will plan and forecast rising costs and mitigate their ipact on the system.

For starters that means a forensic audit of past operational expenditures. Opdhal spent too much time moving money for accounts. Real cost impacts need to be determined and projections based on historical expenses need to be real and data based. Corda will have to seriously consider the viability of each school building, not just from an enrollment perspective but of an operation perspective. The worst energy performing schools need to be evaluated. Investment should be made into more energy efficiency.

There needs to be a real effort to seek out grants to max energy improvements to educational facilities. While the council somehow dithers over the municipal power committee, it should be looking at how all public facilities can upgrade to more energy efficient systems.

But back to food, and The Hour reports:

Rising food and fuel costs have prompted many schools to cut some items from their menus, and Norwalk schools may soon be feeling the pinch.

An e-mail sent last week from the U. S. Department of Agriculture to schools and providers said school lunch providers won’t receive some commodities in September and November from the National School Lunch program.

This means Whitson’s Culinary Group can’t purchase some products, such as cheese and poultry, at the lower price provided for schools with free and reduced-lunch students.

Norwalk schools receive meals from Whitson’s, a catering company that provides dining for schools, corporations, residential healthcare and events.

“It’s scary because you don’t know what will happen,” said Lisa Evans, director of the Norwalk Whitson’s program. “All school districts are feeling this, and the cost (of food) is definitely an issue.”

Evans said Whitson’s hasn’t changed its menu yet, but may do so in the fall for the new school year. She also mentioned the rising cost of everyday food is a “double whammy” when coupled with federal guidelines that state healthier, but more expensive, food must be served on menus for proper nutrition.

“We’ll probably stick to having more standard items on the menu,” she said. “We may have to use more frozen vegetables instead of fresh but all of this could change.”

Elsewhere in the region, school and colleges have been cutting back. Several schools have eliminated trays on the theory that students will grab less if they have to carry the food in their hands. Other schools that charge students by the item are increasing the cost of healthier choices.

Food prices rose more than 4 percent in the United States last year, the biggest jump since 1990, according to the USDA.

�source: The Hour, School menus squeezed by higher food, fuel costs, by Nina Sen, May 12, 2008

Sorry for the short notice on this one, but tonight is Earth Hour. Earth Hour is one of those you can make a difference choose your own adventures. In keeping with my philosophy of environmentalism, Earth Hour is an attempt to get people all over the world to turn off the lights. And here’s the youtube clip:

The web site says:

On March 29, 2008 at 8 p.m., join millions of people around the world in making a statement about climate change by turning off your lights for Earth Hour, an event created by the World Wildlife Fund.

Earth Hour was created by WWF in Sydney, Australia in 2007, and in one year has grown from an event in one city to a global movement. In 2008, millions of people, businesses, governments and civic organizations in nearly 200 cities around the globe will turn out for Earth Hour. More than 100 cities across North America will participate, including the US flagships�Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and San Francisco and Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

We invite everyone throughout North America and around the world to turn off the lights for an hour starting at 8 p.m. (your own local time)�whether at home or at work, with friends and family or solo, in a big city or a small town.

What will you do when the lights are off? We have lots of ideas.

Join people all around the world in showing that you care about our planet and want to play a part in helping to fight climate change. Don’t forget to sign up and let us know you want to join Earth Hour.

One hour, America. Earth Hour. Turn out for Earth Hour!

And you can see a nice reduction in electricity consumption by unplugging all those chargers that feed the mobiles, cordless and wireless devices we all have. So ask NIKE says, just do it.

h/t JB