Ready to Make a Move to Alternatives?

H77, the bill pending in the state House that would require utilities to get a percentage of their power from renewable sources, is going to be considered today at 2pm by the House Energy and Energy Efficiency Committee. If it passes, it will move on to the Committee on Public Utilities on June 14th.

Utilities and their allies in the General Assembly are working hard to a) reduce the amount of energy they'd be required to get from renewables, and b) pass on to consumers the cost of converting to these new sources. Don't let them!

This would be an excellent time to call or e-mail your state representative to tell them that you want a strong renewable standard - and that you think the utilities should bear the brunt of the costs of conversion.

Click here for your state representative (use the zip code lookup at the bottom of the page).

Text of H77 here.


My Rep sent me this reply...

Thank you for emailing me earlier in the session regarding H77. I wanted to
give you an update on the bill.
Rep. Harrison was the primary sponsor of the bill and I signed on as a
co-sponsor. Unfortunately, the bill was referred to committee and it was never
heard. I don't know the exact reason why it never received debate but the bill
is now ineligible for consideration.
I appreciate your taking the time to write with your concerns and your support
of H 77. If my office can ever be of service to you, please don't hesitate to
contact me.


Laura Wiley

61st District
NC House
919 733-5877

That was from June 3rd. I'm confused.

I could be wrong

but I think its not subject to the crossover deadline due to the fiscal impact of the bill. That could be wrong.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

Thanks for Posting This

Screwy, thanks so much for posting this. H77 is a very important bill. This is one of several bills that I've been working "behind the scenes" to push. Establishing a REPS is good on so many levels: it's good for the environment; it's good for national security; and it's good for North Carolina's economy. There are literally billions of dollars in investment capital ready to pour into states that make a serious commitment to alternative energy. This will mean more jobs for North Carolinians.

It wasn't a question so much

as just confusion. My representative replied to my constiutent request to support H77 by telling me she is a co sponsor and that the bill is now ineligible for consideration.

I'm trying to find out, is it alive or is it dead?

I see what they did

They moved it to rules and operations of the house so they can attach a monetary number to it and make it eligible for the short session.


I heard something on the radio today about legislation that would give money to energy companies to not build nuclear power plants? Is there something in this bill like that?

Oh, and when you talk to Thomas next,

ask him why he amended the mental health parity bill so it wouldn't affect businesses with fewer than 25 employees. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing that eliminates pretty much the entire workforce in Buncombe County. Except for the employees of Biltmore House, the Grove Park Inn, and Square-D. (I'm assuming that the hospitals already provide some kind of mental health coverage.)

Just Got This

in my email box from PDNC:

"Progressive Democrats:

The State Senate budget past last week eliminated the State Energy Office and funding for the university energy centers. Needless to say, it is crazy to be scraping the state’s lead agency and research/implementation infrastructure on energy efficiency and renewable energy just when the state is beginning to wake up to the hazards of global warming.

Larry Shirley , the director of the office, and his staff are heroes to the environmental activists in this state who deal with energy issues. They have been strong, well-informed, principled, and independent advocates for sustainable energy – and that seems to be the problem.

It is no secret among experienced environmental lobbyists that the utilities are behind this move. Apparently they want to be sure that they continue to control state energy policy when the pressures for change are mounting. They worked through the Senate leadership, especially Senators Kerr, and Hoyle, as well as through senators Janet Cowell , and Katie Dorsett. Senator Cowell’s name is disturbing here, since she has a strong reputation as a champion of the environment. I talked to her Friday. She tries to argue that killing the office is essentially an upgrade of its functions, but essentially confirmed that the Senate leadership is behind it, that they want Larry gone, and they are looking for someone more “tractable.”

To my knowledge all environmental groups that have taken a position support full funding of the state energy office. The State NAACP also backs the office.

We have about three weeks at the most to turn this around –The budget details have to be worked out in conference committee between the two houses. Joe Hackney , as House Speaker, has a key role. (Do NOT take Joe for granted on this.) The House cut the office’s budget from what it was last year but kept the office intact. Our Governor has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue and needs to hear from us."

Scrutiny Hooligans -

State Energy Office is critical

The SEO would ideally function as a renewable extension office -- helping small businesses and individuals start producing clean energy. Without more funding, however, it'll be pretty much limited to making sure state buildings are energy efficient. (Interestingly, the claim was originally that the office has lost its Federal funding. Thank God for the Internets, otherwise the Governor could have quietly killed this, like he tried to do with voting reform last year.)

Re: H77 My understanding was that Pricey Harrison always planned to put an appropriations item in the bill so as to get past the crossover date. And in fact I think there's an item about funding a natural gas pipeline already in it so it may already qualify. (The pipeline is, however, a poison pill for some environmentalists.)

If I were her constituent, I'd tell Rep. Wiley that she was wrong. That should impress her, I hope.

Finally, the big fights re: the REPS go like this:

1) Making sure we get a strong standard. The Senate is asking for 10%, and the House is asking for 15% -- that's the difference between meeting the projected increase in demand for power over the next decade or so and not meeting it. In other words, with the House version we'll manage to tread water, but with the Senate version we'll only shave a little off that monster curve that Al Gore talks about in An Inconvenient Truth.

2) Preventing power companies from including charges for construction of new plants in their state-set rates. (As if they wouldn't own the new production facilities!)

3) According to that PDNC bulletin cited above:

"The utilities, again working through Senate leadership, are trying to add provisions in the senate version of the bill which would make it easier to pay for nuclear plants. More nuclear plants would be a huge and dangerous diversion of resources away from safe and cheaper sustainable energy."

That sounds like a variation on #2, except worse.

Oh, I will,

tell her that is...

If I were her constituent, I'd tell Rep. Wiley that she was wrong. That should impress her, I hope

funding a natural gas pipeline

A main line goes right through our neighborhood. Do we get to have natural gas? No, we do not.

There are enough houses out here now to make it worthwhile. How come we don't have gas? :p