National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for hartford hartford hartford

  1. Hartford Electric | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Electric Jump to: navigation, search Name: Hartford Electric Place: Wisconsin Phone Number: (262) 670-3700 Website: hartfordelectric.org Outage Hotline: (262) 670-3710 or (262)...

  2. Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: The Hartford | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    The Hartford Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: The Hartford Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: The Hartford Joined the Challenge: April 2013 Headquarters: Hartford, CT Charging Locations: Hartford, CT; Windsor, CT; Simsbury, CT Domestic Employees: 20,000 With more than 200 years of expertise, The Hartford is a leader in property and casualty insurance, group benefits and mutual funds. In 2011, The Hartford installed 6 charging stations at its three main campuses in Hartford, Simsbury and

  3. Hartford, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hartford, Connecticut: Energy Resources Jump to: navigation, search Equivalent URI DBpedia Coordinates 41.7637111, -72.6850932 Show Map Loading map... "minzoom":false,"mapping...

  4. Hartford Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Biomass Facility | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Hartford Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Biomass Facility Facility Hartford Landfill Gas Utilization...

  5. West Hartford, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    "alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":"" Hide Map West Hartford is a town in Hartford County, Connecticut.1 References US Census Bureau...

  6. Hartford Steam Co | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Co Jump to: navigation, search Name: Hartford Steam Co Place: Connecticut Phone Number: 860-725-7005 Website: www.hartfordsteam.com Outage Hotline: 860-725-7005 References: EIA...

  7. 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study- Hartford Workshop

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    On July 9, 2008, DOE hosted a regional pre-study workshop in Hartford, CT to receive input and suggestions concerning the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study. The agenda, full...

  8. National incinerator testing and evaluation program: The environmental characterization of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) Combustion Technology, Mid-Connecticut Facility, Hartford, Connecticut. Final report, June 1987-March 1993

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Finklestein, A.; Klicius, R.D.

    1994-12-01

    The report gives results of an environmental characterization of refuse-derived (RDF) semi-suspension burning technology at a facility in Hartford, Connecticut, that represents state-of-the-art technology, including a spray dryer/fabric filter flue-gas cleaning (FGC) system for each unit. Results were obtained for a variety of steam production rates, combustion conditions, flue gas temperatures, and acid gas removal efficiencies. All incoming wastes and residue streams were weighed, sampled, and analyzed. Key combustor and FGC system operating variables were monitored on a real time basis. A wide range of analyses for acid gases, trace organics, and heavy metals was carried out on gas emissions and all ash residue discharges.

  9. Hartford County, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Systems Connecticut Light and Power DBS Energy Inc Energy Recovery Associates Infinity Fuel Cell and Hydrogen National Energy Resource Corporation Pioneer Valley Photovoltaics...

  10. QER Public Meeting in Providence, RI & Hartford, CT: New England...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... Power Company Remarks of John F. Bilda, General Manager, ... of the United States, Canada & Australia 1 - The ... PDF icon Remarks of Kevin R. Hennessy PDF icon Remarks of ...

  11. East Hartford, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    County, Connecticut.1 References US Census Bureau Incorporated place and minor civil division population dataset (All States, all geography) Retrieved from "http:...

  12. Microsoft Word - Statement Rick Terven.Plumbers Pipefitters.Hartford...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    ... Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds. States would identify natural gas pipeline projects and, as with the established state revolving funds, would have to match 20 ...

  13. Microsoft PowerPoint - Glenn Poole Verso Maine Energy.QER Hartford...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    ... Presenter - Glenn S. Poole Glenn.Poole@versopaper.com * From Monson, Maine * UMO-EE (1971) * Bangor Hydro Electric Co. * Bucksport Paper Mill (42yrs) * Verso Energy Manager (3 ...

  14. QER Public Meeting in Providence, RI & Hartford, CT: New England Regional Infrastructure Constraints

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Meeting Files: Meeting Agenda, Meeting Briefing Memo, Federal Register Notice, Meeting Summary, Transcript of Meeting, and Panelist Remarks

  15. word2pdf43408.doc

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Or You may contact Our Sales Office: Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company Group ... CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY Simsbury, ...

  16. Agenda: New England Regional Infrastructure Constraints | Department...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Part II: Hartford, CT Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Phoenix Auditorium, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 1:00 P.M. - Introduction & Officials Panel...

  17. Higher Efficiency HVAC Motors

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Lead Performer: QM Power, Inc. – Lee’s Summit, MOPartners: United Technologies Research Center – East Hartford, CT

  18. Sebastian County, Arkansas: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    County, Arkansas Barling, Arkansas Bonanza, Arkansas Central City, Arkansas Fort Smith, Arkansas Greenwood, Arkansas Hackett, Arkansas Hartford, Arkansas Huntington,...

  19. Department of Energy Announces Quadrennial Energy Review Public Meeting in Rhode Island, Connecticut

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Advisory of a two-part Quadrennial Energy Review public meeting in Providence, R.I. and Hartford, Conn.

  20. Connecticut Light and Power | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Connecticut Light and Power Address: P.O. Box 270 Place: Hartford, Connecticut Zip: 06141 Region: Northeast - NY NJ CT PA Area Sector: Services Product: Green Power Marketer...

  1. Butler County, Iowa: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Iowa Clarksville, Iowa Dumont, Iowa Greene, Iowa New Hartford, Iowa Parkersburg, Iowa Shell Rock, Iowa Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleButlerCounty,Iowa&...

  2. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, U.S. Representatives Larson and Courtney

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    to Visit Research Center in East Hartford | Department of Energy Steven Chu, U.S. Representatives Larson and Courtney to Visit Research Center in East Hartford U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, U.S. Representatives Larson and Courtney to Visit Research Center in East Hartford February 3, 2011 - 12:00am Addthis WASHINGTON, DC - Tomorrow, Friday, February 4, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu will travel to East Hartford, Conn. to visit United Technologies Research Center, which has received

  3. Lyon County, Kansas: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Subtype A. Places in Lyon County, Kansas Admire, Kansas Allen, Kansas Americus, Kansas Bushong, Kansas Emporia, Kansas Hartford, Kansas Neosho Rapids, Kansas Olpe, Kansas Reading,...

  4. High-Performance Commercial Cold Climate Heat Pump | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Lead Performer: United Technologies Research Center - East Hartford, CT Partners: Carrier Corporation - Farmington, CT DOE Funding: 1,500,000 Cost Share: 373,000 Project Term: ...

  5. Geneva County, Alabama: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Geneva, Alabama Hartford, Alabama Malvern, Alabama Samson, Alabama Slocomb, Alabama Taylor, Alabama Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleGenevaCounty,Alabama...

  6. Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) Fuel Cell Transit Bus: Second Evaluation Report and Appendices

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report describes operations at Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) in Hartford for one prototype fuel cell bus and three new diesel buses operating from the same location.

  7. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, U.S. Representatives Larson...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    General directions are available on the United Technologies Research Center website. WHERE: United Technologies Research Center 411 Silver Lane East Hartford, CT 06108 Media ...

  8. Energy Media Advisories | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    initiative. February 3, 2011 U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, U.S. Representatives Larson and Courtney to Visit Research Center in East Hartford WASHINGTON, DC - Tomorrow,...

  9. Licking County, Ohio: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    in Licking County, Ohio Alexandria, Ohio Beechwood Trails, Ohio Buckeye Lake, Ohio Granville South, Ohio Granville, Ohio Gratiot, Ohio Hanover, Ohio Harbor Hills, Ohio Hartford,...

  10. United Technologies Corp | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    United Technologies Corp Place: Hartford, Connecticut Zip: CT 06101 Sector: Hydro, Hydrogen Product: UTC is a global technology corporation with activities in aerospace,...

  11. Avon, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    "alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":"" Hide Map Avon is a town in Hartford County, Connecticut.1 Registered Energy Companies in Avon,...

  12. Better Buildings Challenge Partners Exceed $1.3 Billion in Energy...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... A list of all goal achievers is in the 2016 Progress Report. This year's 18 goal achievers include: City of Atlanta, GA Arby's Cummins, Inc. eBay, Inc. Hartford Financial Services ...

  13. 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study Workshops...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    June 11, 2008 San Francisco, CA June 18, 2008 Oklahoma City, OK July 9, 2008 Hartford, CT July 29, 2008 Atlanta, GA August 6, 2008 Las Vegas, NV September 17, 2008 Chicago, IL DOE ...

  14. QER- Comment of Elaine Mroz

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Elaine Mroz Quadrennial Energy Review: Comment on the Public Meetings ‘‘Infrastructure Restraints- New England” held April 21, 2014, in Providence, RI and Hartford, CT. Please see attached file.

  15. TO

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    1 Receiving Station j3 Eact Hartford 8, Connecticut Attention: To be opened by IL J. Kelly, Fox Project Please notify C. R. h?iU.iken, Pratt &Whitney, direct of any costs...

  16. CX-004915: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    United Technologies Research Center - Water-Based Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning SystemCX(s) Applied: B3.6Date: 08/16/2010Location(s): East Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy

  17. Blue Hills, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hide Map This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. Blue Hills is a census-designated place in Hartford County, Connecticut.1 References ...

  18. CX-007525: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Connecticut-City-Hartford CX(s) Applied: A9, A11, B2.5, B5.1 Date: 01/06/2012 Location(s): Connecticut Offices(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

  19. West Simsbury, Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hide Map This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. West Simsbury is a census-designated place in Hartford County, Connecticut.1 References...

  20. CX-005347: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Geothermal Incentive ProgramCX(s) Applied: A9, B5.1Date: 03/02/2011Location(s): East Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  1. Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: Legrand | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Legrand Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: Legrand Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: Legrand Joined the Challenge: November 2014 Headquarters: West Hartford, CT Charging Locations: West Hartford, CT; Syracuse, NY; Fairfield, NJ Domestic Employees: 2,500 Legrand specializes in products and systems for electrical installations and information networks and is committed to integrating sustainability into the way it conducts business. In alignment with its sustainability commitment, Legrand,

  2. CX-004690: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Natural Refrigerant Very-High Efficiency Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning SystemCX(s) Applied: A9, B2.2, B5.1Date: 12/16/2010Location(s): East Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  3. Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) Fuel Cell Transit Bus: Preliminary Evaluation Results

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, K.; Eudy, L.

    2008-10-01

    This report provides preliminary results from a National Renewable Energy Laboratory evaluation of a protoptye fuel cell transit bus operating at Connecticut Transit in Hartford. Included are descriptions of the planned fuel cell bus demonstration and equipment; early results and agency experience are also provided.

  4. Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) Fuel Cell Transit Bus: Second Evaluation Report and Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, K.; Eudy, L.

    2009-05-01

    This report describes operations at Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) in Hartford for one prototype fuel cell bus and three new diesel buses operating from the same location. The evaluation period in this report (January 2008 through February 2009) has been chosen to coincide with a UTC Power propulsion system changeout that occurred on January 15, 2008.

  5. CX-005443: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Plug and Play Distributed Power Systems for Smart-Grid Connected BuildingsCX(s) Applied: A9, B2.2, B5.1Date: 03/17/2011Location(s): East Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  6. CX-000698: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Connecticut - State Building Energy Improvements: 79 Elm StreetCX(s) Applied: B1.3, B1.4, B1.24, B1.31, B2.5, B5.1Date: 01/05/2010Location(s): Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  7. CX-002716: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Advanced Low Temperature Heat Recovery Absorption Chiller Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) ModuleCX(s) Applied: A1, A9Date: 06/11/2010Location(s): East Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  8. CX-004641: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Integrated Whole Building Energy DiagnosticsCX(s) Applied: A9, B2.2, B5.1Date: 12/09/2010Location(s): East Hartford, ConnecticutOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory

  9. Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) Fuel Cell Transit Bus: Preliminary Evaluation Results

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report provides preliminary results from the evaluation of a protoptye fuel cell transit bus operating at Connecticut Transit in Hartford. Included are descriptions of the planned fuel cell bus demonstration and equipment, early results and agency experience are also provided.

  10. CX-002111: Categorical Exclusion Determination

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Optimization of Hybrid-Water/Air-Cooled Condenser In an Enhanced Turbine Geothermal Organic Rankine Cycle SystemCX(s) Applied: B3.6, A9Date: 05/05/2010Location(s): East Hartford, CTOffice(s): Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Golden Field Office

  11. High-Performance Home Technologies: Solar Thermal & Photovoltaic Systems; Volume 6 Building America Best Practices Series

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Commercial Cold Climate Heat Pump High-Performance Commercial Cold Climate Heat Pump Credit: United Technologies Research Center Credit: United Technologies Research Center Lead Performer: United Technologies Research Center - East Hartford, CT Partners: Carrier Corporation - Farmington, CT DOE Funding: $1,500,000 Cost Share: $373,000 Project Term: 3/1/2013 - 5/29/2015 Funding Opportunity: Energy Savings Through Improved Mechanical Systems and Building Envelope Technologies 2012 (DE-FOA-0000621)

  12. High-efficiency Low Global-Warming Potential (GWP) Compressor | Department

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    of Energy efficiency Low Global-Warming Potential (GWP) Compressor High-efficiency Low Global-Warming Potential (GWP) Compressor Lead Performer: United Technologies Research Center - East Hartford, CT DOE Total Funding: $974,000 Cost Share: $417,000 Project Term: September 2015 - August 2017 Funding Opportunity: Building Energy Efficiency Frontiers and Innovation Technologies (BENEFIT) - 2015, DE-FOA-0001166 Project Objective United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) proposes to demonstrate

  13. Shirley Ann Jackson | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Shirley Ann Jackson About Us Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D. - President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Former Chairman, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shirley Ann Jackson The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., is the 18th president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy, New York, and Hartford, Connecticut, the oldest technological research university in the United States. She was elected to the Brookings Board of Trustees in 2000. Described by Time Magazine as "perhaps the

  14. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Shirley Ann Jackson About Us Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D. - President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Former Chairman, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shirley Ann Jackson The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., is the 18th president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy, New York, and Hartford, Connecticut, the oldest technological research university in the United States. She was elected to the Brookings Board of Trustees in 2000. Described by Time Magazine as "perhaps the

  15. Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) Fuel Cell Transit Bus: Third Evaluation Report and Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, K.; Eudy, L.

    2010-01-01

    This report describes operations at Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) in Hartford for one prototype fuel cell bus and three new diesel buses operating from the same location. The prototype fuel cell bus was manufactured by Van Hool and ISE Corp. and features an electric hybrid drive system with a UTC Power PureMotion 120 Fuel Cell Power System and ZEBRA batteries for energy storage. The fuel cell bus started operation in April 2007, and evaluation results through October 2009 are provided in this report.

  16. Microsoft Word - AMS Report v6.doc

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    ADVANCED MICROTURBINE SYSTEMS Final Report for Tasks 1 Through 4 and Task 6 T. Rosfjord, Program Manager W. Tredway, Deputy Program Manager A. Chen, J. Mulugeta, and T. Bhatia United Technologies Research Center East Hartford, CT 06118 March 26, 2007 Prepared for The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Distributed Energy Award No. DE-FC26-00CH11060 Report Number DOE/CH/11060-1 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.

  17. Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) Fuel Cell Transit Bus: Third Evaluation Report and Appendices

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report describes operations at Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) in Hartford for one prototype fuel cell bus and three new diesel buses operating from the same location. The prototype fuel cell bus was manufactured by Van Hool and ISE Corp. and features an electric hybrid drive system with a UTC Power PureMotion 120 Fuel Cell Power System and ZEBRA batteries for energy storage. The fuel cell bus started operation in April 2007, and evaluation results through October 2009 are provided in this report.

  18. QER- Comment of Rachel Branch

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    April 20, 2014 I hereby respectfully request that the Department of Energy Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force on the Infrastructure Constraints in New England oppose any new development or building of any more fossil fuel infrastructure and only allow the repair of existing infrastructure that is absolutely necessary as we transition to sustainable, renewable sources. Further, I respectfully request that any and all subsidies, tax incentives and/or tax exemptions hereinafter be appropriated and/or directed only to sustainable, renewable sources, i. e., solar, wind, and hydro energy, and development of electrical storage capacities for those sustainable and renewable sources. I further request that any funds spent to push for fossil fuel infrastructure be transparent to the general public. As you are holding meetings in Providence and Hartford, when will your meeting in Massachusetts be scheduled so that Commonwealth of Massachusetts residents can participate? Respectfully submitted, Rachel I. Branch

  19. Thermal performance of a scramjet combustor operating at Mach 5.6 flight conditions. Final report, May 1996--May 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stouffer, S.D.; Neumann, R.D.; Emmer, D.S.

    1997-10-01

    This report describes the experimental data and the procedures used in acquiring and reducing the thermal loads data during tests of a hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet combustor at United Technologies Research Center (UTRC). This research effort is part of the UTRC effort to develop dual-mode scramjet combustor technology to support the development of Mach S missile technology. The objective of the thermal loads testing was to map the thermal and mechanical loads, including heat transfer, dynamic and static pressures, and skin friction in a scramjet combustor during direct-connect scramjet tests. The tests were conducted at the UTRC Ramject/Scramjet direct-connect combustor test facility in East Hartford, CT.

  20. Commercialization effort in support of electroslag-casting technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sikka, V.K.

    1993-06-01

    This report summarizes the results of an effort to revive interest in the electroslag casting (ESC) of components in the United States. The ESC process is an extension of a well established electroslag-remelting (ESR) process. Both processes use the electrode of a material that is continuously melted and cast in a water-cooled copper mold. For simple shapes, the mold can be movable, allowing the continuous casting of long lengths. In an effort to revive US industries` interest in ESC, the following approaches were taken: (1) US industries with prior experience in ESC or currently operating an ESR unit were contacted, followed up with telephone conversation, and/or sent copies of prior published reports on the topic, and, in some cases, personal visits were made; (2) with two companies, a potential interest in ESC was worked out by initially conducting ESR; and (3) to further strengthen the industrial interest, the newly developed iron-aluminide alloy, FA-129, was chosen as the material of choice for this study. The two industrial companies that worked with ORNL were Special Metals Corporation (New Hartford, New York) and Precision Rolled Products, Inc. (PRP) [Florham Park, New Jersey]. Even with its advantages, a survey of the industry indicated that ESC technology has a very limited chance of advancement in the United States. However, the processing of rounds and slabs by the ESR process is a well established commercial technology and will continue to expand. 16 figs, 3 tabs, 12 refs.

  1. Educating the public about America`s fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paul, J.H. [C.E.E.D., Northfield, NJ (United States)

    1995-12-31

    Today we would like to take a few moments of your time to talk about America`s fuel-coal, and a new organization created to educate decision makers, the public and educators. The Center for Energy & Economics Development (CEED) began as a concept in late 1992, and began operations with the creation of the Southern Region in March of 1993. Discussions began among several railroad CEO`s who were concerned that their major revenue commodity - coal - was experiencing serious problems due to public opposition and governmental restrictions. Conversations with their counterparts in the coal industry resulted in an agreement to forget parochial and often conflicting interests in Washington, and pursue the development of an overall grassroots joint-effort to protect the coal option. Those of you familiar with the history of conflict between these two industries recognize that this was a major step, and one that has led to an exciting new initiative. The coal/rail discussions examined a variety of approaches that the coalition might follow. Rather than jumping off into unchartered waters, or retraveling old roads, the group decided to first find out what was known and unknown about coal and energy. A Washington public relations firm, and a well known polling organization began the process in December of 1992 with a comprehensive opinion research program that would allow us to understand attitudes and opinions about energy and economic development, specifically coal and related issues. We reviewed the public-opinion history of coal beginning with the first national survey conducted in 1944, and then held a series of qualitative focus discussions in Tampa, Hartford, Denver and Indianapolis. In each city there was a discussion between business leaders and environmental activists, and one with the general public. In January of 1993, the focus groups were followed by a quantitative assessment of national opinion measuring trends, collecting demographic and geographic differences.

  2. Eleventh workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering: Proceedings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ramey, H.J. Jr.; Kruger, P.; Miller, F.G.; Horne, R.N.; Brigham, W.E.; Counsil, J.R.

    1986-01-23

    The Eleventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering was held at Stanford University on January 21-23, 1986. The attendance was up compared to previous years, with 144 registered participants. Ten foreign countries were represented: Canada, England, France, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Turkey. There were 38 technical presentations at the Workshop which are published as papers in this Proceedings volume. Six technical papers not presented at the Workshop are also published and one presentation is not published. In addition to these 45 technical presentations or papers, the introductory address was given by J. E. Mock from the Department of Energy. The Workshop Banquet speaker was Jim Combs of Geothermal Resources International, Inc. We thank him for his presentation on GEO geothermal developments at The Geysers. The chairmen of the technical sessions made an important contribution to the Workshop. Other than Stanford faculty members they included: M. Gulati, E. Iglesias, A. Moench, S. Prestwich, and K. Pruess. The Workshop was organized by the Stanford Geothermal Program faculty, staff, and students. We would like to thank J.W. Cook, J.R. Hartford, M.C. King, A.E. Osugi, P. Pettit, J. Arroyo, J. Thorne, and T.A. Ramey for their valued help with the meeting arrangements and preparing the Proceedings. We also owe great thanks to our students who arranged and operated the audio-visual equipment. The Eleventh Workshop was supported by the Geothermal Technology Division of the U.S. Department of Energy through Contract DE-AS03-80SF11459. We deeply appreciate this continued support. January 1986 H.J. Ramey, Jr. P. Kruger R.N. Horne W.E. Brigham F.G. Miller J.R. Counsil

  3. QER- Comment of Don Ogden

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    To the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force and Energy Policy Systems Analysis Staff: We are unable to attend today's public meeting in Hartford, CT. With only four working days advanced notice of this event we find it difficult to believe that any real effort has been made on your part to reach out to the public for their input. Be that as it may, we want to take this opportunity to comment on the very subject of this meeting. The only true energy related "Infrastructure constraints" we are aware of here in New England are those experienced by corporate entities who seek to export our precious resources to other nations for profit. This, of course, is not at all in the public's interest. Certainly you recall all the efforts our goverment put into establishing "Energy Independence"? That phrase has, and continues to be the watchword heard throughout our nation. Why now, when so-called "Energy Independence" has yet to be established, would we choose to enable private corporations to export gas and oil to other countries at our expense? Further, why is it that corporations and their supporters in government are not actively seeking to repair the massive and dangerous leaks in our existing pipelines? How can corporations and government agencies who reportedly oversee energy corporations even consider building new pipelines when the existing ones are in so need of repair? With this in mind, the only "constraints" we are aware of are the lack of constraints on energy corporations run amok, forever seeking more profits at the expense of the public good. Please recall your mission: "The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions." Such security is only possible if we plan ahead for future generations in the midst of the Climate Crisis. Selling off our energy resources to other nations until they are depleted is not in keeping with that mission. Allowing existing energy infrastructure to leak methane and other elements into our compromised atmosphere is not in keeping with that mission. Let's have some of those "transformative solutions", let's put every effort into limiting gas & oil leaks and keeping our energy resources here at home. Don Ogden, producer/co-host The Enviro Show WXOJ-LP & WMCB

  4. Ninth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering: Proceedings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ramey, H.J. Jr.; Kruger, P.; Miller, F.G.; Horne, R.N.; Brigham, W.E.; Gudmundsson, J.S.

    1983-12-15

    The attendance at the Workshop was similar to last year's with 123 registered participants of which 22 represented 8 foreign countries. A record number of technical papers (about 60) were submitted for presentation at the Workshop. The Program Committee, therefore, decided to have several parallel sessions to accommodate most of the papers. This format proved unpopular and will not be repeated. Many of the participants felt that the Workshop lost some of its unique qualities by having parallel sessions. The Workshop has always been held near the middle of December during examination week at Stanford. This timing was reviewed in an open discussion at the Workshop. The Program Committee subsequently decided to move the Workshop to January. The Tenth Workshop will be held on January 22-24, 1985. The theme of the Workshop this year was ''field developments worldwide''. The Program Committee addressed this theme by encouraging participants to submit field development papers, and by inviting several international authorities to give presentations at the Workshop. Field developments in at least twelve countries were reported: China, El Salvador, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the United States. There were 58 technical presentations at the Workshop, of which 4 were not made available for publication. Several authors submitted papers not presented at the Workshop. However, these are included in the 60 papers of these Proceedings. The introductory address was given by Ron Toms of the U.S. Department of Energy, and the banquet speaker was A1 Cooper of Chevron Resources Company. An important contribution was made to the Workshop by the chairmen of the technical sessions. Other than Stanford Geothermal Program faculty members, they included: Don White (Field Developments), Bill D'Olier (Hydrothermal Systems), Herman Dykstra (Well Testing), Karsten Pruess (Well Testing), John Counsil (Reservoir Chemistry), Malcolm Mossman (Reservoir Chemistry), Greg Raasch (Production), Manny Nathenson (Injection), Susan Petty (Injection), Subir Sanyal (Simulation), Marty Molloy (Petrothermal), and Allen Moench (Reservoir Physics). The Workshop was organized by the Stanford Geothermal Program faculty, staff and students. We would like to thank Jean Cook, Joanne Hartford, Terri Ramey, Amy Osugi, and Marilyn King for their valued help with the Workshop arrangements and the Proceedings. We also owe thanks to the program students who arranged and operated the audio-visual equipment. The Ninth Workshop was supported by the Geothermal and Hydropower Technologies Division of the U . S . Department of Energy through contract DE-AT03-80SF11459. We deeply appreciate this continued support. H. J. Ramey, Jr., R. N. Horne, P. Kruger, W. E. Brigham, F. G. Miller, J. S . Gudmundsson -vii

  5. QER- Comment of Stephen Kurkoski

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    I attended the meeting yesterday in Hartford, Conn. I thank you for the opportunity to speak during the public comment period. I thanked the moderator, Fred Hanson, for bringing up the option of Conservation and Energy Efficiency to the last panel. The following are the comments I presented. I would first like to say that the Northeast does not have an energy supply problem. The problem that we have is a demand/supply issue. If the problem is only referred to as a supply problem then only supply solutions will be looked at. When we talk about meeting our energy needs, the conversation should start with: 1st Conservation 2nd Energy Efficiency …..and if we have a concern about Climate Change 3rd Renewables 4th Polluting technologies such as Fossil Fuels and Nuclear If we do not implement this list in the above order we will leave a very different climate and a planet that is difficult to live on for our children. I would next like to illustrate the power of Conservation, Energy Efficiency and Renewables. Two years ago my wife and I had the good fortune to be chosen to participate in the National Grid Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot Program. Thank you to National Grid and the state of Massachusetts. By super insulating and air sealing our house, installing an air-source heat pump and a 2.4kW solar system, along with practicing conservation, our total energy bill for last year was $60, which equals 300 pounds of CO2 equivalent. This includes this past winter with its "polar vortex". Conservation, Efficiency and Renewables have been mentioned by a few of the presenters today. We need to bring Conservation, Efficiency and Renewables to center stage to solve our energy needs. Recommendations: 1. Institute to a greater extent "Peak Load Shaving". 2. Make it mandatory that all buildings that are built are Zero Net Energy or Zero Plus Energy. 3. Institute a more aggressive "Time of Use" Electric and Gas Metering System that Mr Reilly of the Vermont Electric Power Company mentioned earlier. 4. Put a severe Carbon Tax on all polluting Energy Producers. 5. Measure CO2 emissions for the complete cycle of extraction, transportation, storage and burning of all Energy options. 6. Remove all incentives and support for Energy Producers of Fossil Fuel and Nuclear. Thank you, Stephen Kurkoski

  6. PROGRESS & CHALLENGES IN CLEANUP OF HANFORDS TANK WASTES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HEWITT, W.M.; SCHEPENS, R.

    2006-01-23

    The River Protection Project (RPP), which is managed by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection (ORP), is highly complex from technical, regulatory, legal, political, and logistical perspectives and is the largest ongoing environmental cleanup project in the world. Over the past three years, ORP has made significant advances in its planning and execution of the cleanup of the Hartford tank wastes. The 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs), 28 double-shell tanks (DSTs), and 60 miscellaneous underground storage tanks (MUSTs) at Hanford contain approximately 200,000 m{sup 3} (53 million gallons) of mixed radioactive wastes, some of which dates back to the first days of the Manhattan Project. The plan for treating and disposing of the waste stored in large underground tanks is to: (1) retrieve the waste, (2) treat the waste to separate it into high-level (sludge) and low-activity (supernatant) fractions, (3) remove key radionuclides (e.g., Cs-137, Sr-90, actinides) from the low-activity fraction to the maximum extent technically and economically practical, (4) immobilize both the high-level and low-activity waste fractions by vitrification, (5) interim store the high-level waste fraction for ultimate disposal off-site at the federal HLW repository, (6) dispose the low-activity fraction on-site in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF), and (7) close the waste management areas consisting of tanks, ancillary equipment, soils, and facilities. Design and construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), the cornerstone of the RPP, has progressed substantially despite challenges arising from new seismic information for the WTP site. We have looked closely at the waste and aligned our treatment and disposal approaches with the waste characteristics. For example, approximately 11,000 m{sup 3} (2-3 million gallons) of metal sludges in twenty tanks were not created during spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and have low fission product concentrations. We plan to treat these wastes as transuranic waste (TRU) for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which will reduce the WTP system processing time by three years. We are also developing and testing bulk vitrification as a technology to supplement the WTP LAW vitrification facility for immobilizing the massive volume of LAW. We will conduct a full-scale demonstration of the Demonstration Bulk Vitrification System by immobilizing up to 1,100 m{sup 3} (300,000 gallons) of tank S-109 low-curie soluble waste from which Cs-137 had previously been removed. This past year has been marked by both progress and new challenges. The focus of our tank farm work has been retrieving waste from the old single-shell tanks (SSTs). We have completed waste retrieval from three SSTs and are conducting retrieval operations on an additional three SSTs. While most waste retrievals have gone about as expected, we have faced challenges with some recalcitrant tank heel wastes that required enhanced approaches. Those enhanced approaches ranged from oxalic acid additions to deploying a remote high-pressure water lance. As with all large, long-term projects that employ first of a kind technologies, we continue to be challenged to control costs and maintain schedule. However, it is most important to work safely and to provide facilities that will do the job they are intended to do.

  7. Effect of Component Failures on Economics of Distributed Photovoltaic Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lubin, Barry T.

    2012-02-02

    This report describes an applied research program to assess the realistic costs of grid connected photovoltaic (PV) installations. A Board of Advisors was assembled that included management from the regional electric power utilities, as well as other participants from companies that work in the electric power industry. Although the program started with the intention of addressing effective load carrying capacity (ELCC) for utility-owned photovoltaic installations, results from the literature study and recommendations from the Board of Advisors led investigators to the conclusion that obtaining effective data for this analysis would be difficult, if not impossible. The effort was then re-focused on assessing the realistic costs and economic valuations of grid-connected PV installations. The 17 kW PV installation on the University of Hartford's Lincoln Theater was used as one source of actual data. The change in objective required a more technically oriented group. The re-organized working group (changes made due to the need for more technically oriented participants) made site visits to medium-sized PV installations in Connecticut with the objective of developing sources of operating histories. An extensive literature review helped to focus efforts in several technical and economic subjects. The objective of determining the consequences of component failures on both generation and economic returns required three analyses. The first was a Monte-Carlo-based simulation model for failure occurrences and the resulting downtime. Published failure data, though limited, was used to verify the results. A second model was developed to predict the reduction in or loss of electrical generation related to the downtime due to these failures. Finally, a comprehensive economic analysis, including these failures, was developed to determine realistic net present values of installed PV arrays. Two types of societal benefits were explored, with quantitative valuations developed for both. Some societal benefits associated with financial benefits to the utility of having a distributed generation capacity that is not fossil-fuel based have been included into the economic models. Also included and quantified in the models are several benefits to society more generally: job creation and some estimates of benefits from avoiding greenhouse emissions. PV system failures result in a lowering of the economic values of a grid-connected system, but this turned out to be a surprisingly small effect on the overall economics. The most significant benefit noted resulted from including the societal benefits accrued to the utility. This provided a marked increase in the valuations of the array and made the overall value proposition a financially attractive one, in that net present values exceeded installation costs. These results indicate that the Department of Energy and state regulatory bodies should consider focusing on societal benefits that create economic value for the utility, confirm these quantitative values, and work to have them accepted by the utilities and reflected in the rate structures for power obtained from grid-connected arrays. Understanding and applying the economic benefits evident in this work can significantly improve the business case for grid-connected PV installations. This work also indicates that the societal benefits to the population are real and defensible, but not nearly as easy to justify in a business case as are the benefits that accrue directly to the utility.

  8. QER- Comment of Martha Tirk

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    I write as a concerned citizen from Ashfield, one of the rural western Massachusetts towns that would be affected by the proposed installation of a gas pipeline along the existing electrical power grid by Kinder Morgan/TGP. My property abuts easements for these high tension lines. My concerns are threefold: 1. The valuation of my property, and that of others affected by this proposed pipeline, would decrease substantially should this installation become a reality. This will negatively impact the tax basis and in aggregate, reduced tax revenues for our town will have a significant negative effect on schools, public safety, road maintenance and other services. 2. I question the ability to adequately insure my property in the event of this installation becoming a reality. The risks associated with the transport and storage of gas are frightening and real, particularly "fracked' gas with the additives - known and unknown - that become a part of its composition through the shale drilling process and through reactions with the steel pipe in which its carried. My insurance policy, a standard one, will not cover losses that could foreseeably be incurred as a result of leakage, explosion, fire, or other distinctly possible incidents along the pipeline route. 3. The salability of my property will be negatively impacted by this pipeline. In fact, the mere proposal has already had an affect. My immediate neighbor, an older woman who has been living in and maintaining an historic 200+ year old farm house for over 30 years, has recently lost the sale of her home as news of Kinder Morgan's intent has become widespread. We live in a small and rural town. Our quality of life is as precious to us as our natural and community resources - clean water, clean air, rich farmland, and neighbors who take the time to be educated about the impact of proposed large-scale energy generating and transmission projects because we care deeply about preserving all of it. I don't pretend to understand all of the science and nuance involved, but it's clear to me that safety and environmental risks, and the financial risks to our entire community, are significant. What's not clear is how any of us would benefit from the presence of this pipeline in our town and in our region. I am opposed to "fracking" in the first place, and concerned that the real problem is continued dependence on fossil fuels as opposed to renewable and clean energy. Apart from my concerns about "fracked" gas, I do not believe we need more fossil fuel infrastructure. What we do need is a public-private partnership that promotes sustainable, renewable energy sources and the development of storage capacity for electricity generated by those sources. I cannot attend either of your meetings tomorrow in Hartford or Providence but wanted to express my concerns. Thank you.

  9. Sixth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering: Proceedings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ramey, H.J. Jr.; Kruger, P.

    1980-12-18

    INTRODUCTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, STANFORD GEOTHERMAL PROGRAM Henry J. Ramey, Jr., and Paul Kruger Co-Principal Investigators Ian G. Donaldson Program Manager Stanford Geothermal Program The Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering convened at Stanford University on December 16, 1980. As with previous Workshops the attendance was around 100 with a significant participation from countries other than the United States (18 attendees from 6 countries). In addition, there were a number of papers from foreign contributors not able to attend. Because of the success of all the earlier workshops there was only one format change, a new scheduling of Tuesday to Thursday rather than the earlier Wednesday through Friday. This change was in general considered for the better and will be retained for the Seventh Workshop. Papers were presented on two and a half of the three days, the panel session, this year on the numerical modeling intercomparison study sponsored by the Department of Energy, being held on the second afternoon. This panel discussion is described in a separate Stanford Geothermal Program Report (SGP-TR42). This year there was a shift in subject of the papers. There was a reduction in the number of papers offered on pressure transients and well testing and an introduction of several new subjects. After overviews by Bob Gray of the Department of Energy and Jack Howard of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, we had papers on field development, geopressured systems, production engineering, well testing, modeling, reservoir physics, reservoir chemistry, and risk analysis. A total of 51 papers were contributed and are printed in these Proceedings. It was, however, necessary to restrict the presentations and not all papers printed were presented. Although the content of the Workshop has changed over the years, the format to date has proved to be satisfactory. The objectives of the Workshop, the bringing together of researchers, engineers and managers involved in geothermal reservoir study and development and the provision of a forum for the prompt and open reporting of progress and for the exchange of ideas, continue to be met . Active discussion by the majority of the participants is apparent both in and outside the workshop arena. The Workshop Proceedings now contain some of the most highly cited geothermal literature. Unfortunately, the popularity of the Workshop for the presentation and exchange of ideas does have some less welcome side effects. The major one is the developing necessity for a limitation of the number of papers that are actually presented. We will continue to include all offered papers in the Summaries and Proceedings. As in the recent past, this sixth Workshop was supported by a grant from the Department of Energy. This grant is now made directly to Stanford as part of the support for the Stanford Geothermal Program (Contract No. DE-AT03-80SF11459). We are certain that all participants join us in our appreciation of this continuing support. Thanks are also due to all those individuals who helped in so many ways: The members of the program committee who had to work so hard to keep the program to a manageable size - George Frye (Aminoil USA), Paul G. Atkinson (Union Oil Company). Michael L. Sorey (U.S.G.S.), Frank G. Miller (Stanford Geothermal Program), and Roland N. Horne (Stanford Geothermal Program). The session chairmen who contributed so much to the organization and operation of the technical sessions - George Frye (Aminoil USA), Phillip H. Messer (Union Oil Company), Leland L. Mink (Department of Energy), Manuel Nathenson (U.S.G.S.), Gunnar Bodvarsson (Oregon State University), Mohindar S. Gulati (Union Oil Company), George F. Pinder (Princeton University), Paul A. Witherspoon (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory), Frank G. Miller (Stanford Geothermal Program) and Michael J. O'Sullivan (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory). The many people who assisted behind the scenes, making sure that everything was prepared and organized - in particular we would like to thank Jean Cook and Joanne Hartford (Petroleum Engineering Department, Stanford University) without whom there may never have been a Sixth Workshop. Henry J. Ramey, Jr. Paul Kruger Ian G. Donaldson Stanford University December 31, 1980

  10. QER- Comment of Janice Kurkoski

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Proposal for Conservation Reward Rate for Electricity First of all, thank you for the time you are taking to hear from the public along with the industry and government officials in this critical matter. I attended the public hearing in Hartford CT two days ago and was able to comment on parts of what we are proposing here. We are writing to open a conversation with you about a proposal that we have been discussing in our past meetings. We would like to see you initiate legislation that would mandate a "stepped rate" for electricity, under which consumers who used less would pay a lower rate per kilowatt hour than those who used more. Background North Quabbin Energy is a community group from the nine North Quabbin towns in north central Massachusetts that focuses on education and local action relating to ways to conserve energy and support local and regional enterprises that reduce our dependence on imported resources. The towns are Athol, Orange, Petersham, Royalston, Warwick, Wendell, New Salem, Erving and Phillipston. Our members include representatives from the appointed Energy Committees of these towns. For the past six years, we have participated in many different types of events and activities, always with an emphasis on the idea that the single best way to address the high financial, social, and environmental costs of our current energy use patterns is to consume less energy in the first place. What we have discovered in our community work is that most people seem aware of the reasons for conserving energy (lowering greenhouse gas emissions, saving money, reducing dependence on oil and other imported resources, etc.). Many are also knowledgeable about the basic weatherization and conservation strategies that utilities, municipalities, and community groups like ours try to promote (for example, adding insulation to homes, turning thermostats down, or using fluorescent or LED lighting rather than incandescent bulbs). Yet except when energy prices are extraordinarily high, it appears that there is a great deal of inertia among the general public about actually making changes in their energy consumption patterns. This proposal would address that issue of inertia by creating a direct incentive program for using less electricity. People could very quickly and easily make changes that would lower their electric use, and would see immediate results on their electric bills. Comparable programs Many utilities are beginning to offer peak and off-peak metering as a way to equalize demand on the electric grid, but although this is useful in making people more aware of their energy use patterns, it does nothing to reduce overall demand and may actually encourage more wasteful consumption at off-peak times. A few utilities are starting to offer the kind of stepped rate or rewards program that we are proposing. For example, Western Massachusetts Electric Company recently inaugurated a program that awards "points" (redeemable for consumer items) for the numbers of kilowatt hours saved. In our opinion, this kind of program sends the wrong message because it encourages people to save in one area (electricity use) in order to consume in another. Examples of programs more in line with what we are proposing already exist. One is British Columbia Hydro's "Conservation Rate," started in April 2010. Under their Residential Conservation Rate, customers pay 7.52 cents per kWh for the first 1,350 kWh they use over an average two-month billing period. Above that amount, customers pay 11.27 cents per kWh for the balance of the electricity used during the billing period. In nearby Vermont, the Washington Electric Cooperative has had stepped or tiered rates for years. They reward residential users with a relatively very low rate of 9.43 cents per kWhr for the first 200 kWhrs, and then charge a significantly higher rate of 21.06 cents thereafter. As a result, their customers use on average about 11% less than the households in our area. Points for discussion What might be a reasonable target figure for the stepped rate? The current Massachusetts average is about 610 kWh/month. Members of North Quabbin Energy have demonstrated that it is quite possible to use a half or even a third of that amount without any decline in standard or quality of living1. In fact, this level of reduction is imperative given the seriousness of climate change and resource depletion. How could this change best be promoted to the public? We would argue that this is not a rate increase, but rather a rate redistribution that rewards lower energy consumption. It seems important to emphasize the positive rewards of this kind of change, rather than framing it as a penalty for higher use2. It also seems crucial to demonstrate from the outset that reducing a household's electric use can be done with surprising ease, given a greater awareness of how much energy waste can be avoided with a change in behavior. How could the concerns of low-income customers, those with large families, or those who heat exclusively with electricity be addressed? The BCHydro and Washington Electric Cooperative programs provide useful models for addressing these questions, and there is a great deal of regional data that shows how these consumers would by no means be penalized in the kind of pricing structure we are proposing. What programs could be funded with the increased revenues? Public outrage would be justified if the money went into the general coffers of the utility companies and fossil fuel energy supply and distribution companies. Enhanced conservation programs should be the target of these revenues. Attachments: 1 NQE individual.pdf, 2 NQE proposed incentive rate Note - if attachments do not go through, see this web page for these documents: http://northquabbinenergy.org/wordpress/?page_id=205