From Raleigh News & Observer
That's not thunder you hear in the race for the United States Senate between incumbent Republican Richard Burr and Democratic nominee Elaine Marshall. It's more of a loud rustle, as the candidates shake the money trees that might yield the millions of dollars it takes to win an election these days, particularly a statewide one.
So far, Burr's fruit has fallen in more abundance. Thanks to his incumbency, and to his favored-nation status with special interests connected to the drug and insurance industries, the senator recently had about $6 million in his campaign coffers (it probably has increased by now). Marshall's a relative pauper, with her treasure chest at a fraction of that. She has, of course, been helped by independent groups who have spent handsomely attacking Burr, including one television commercial featuring a make-believe Burr being dragged from an oil-soaked body of water (illustrating what are alleged to be his ties to big oil).
The truth is, this should be a pretty interesting race. Both candidates have held statewide office for some time. And there could not be a race with a more clear philosophical divide, Burr's free-market GOP philosophy versus Marshall's more traditional Democratic views.
Unfortunately, the differential in money may wind up being a deciding factor in the race, and is that something that's really good for the people of North Carolina? Should we really want a campaign wherein cash carries the day?
In the coming weeks, we are going to see a bombardment of advertising, and many fundraising events that will be well-attended by special interest groups. This will happen with both candidates, who'll be dialing for dollars until the last days.
And yet, Congress continues to shy away from real campaign finance reform (and the Supreme Court upended reform that did try to limit corporate cash and union contributions) or to champion public financing, everywhere. In meantime, special interests come through loud and clear to candidates eager for their money. The public's interests seem to be muffled by all that rustling.
Moore Progressive
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Understanding Steve Slater's Airline Rage
From The Pilot
By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 15, 2010
A recent headline on the ABC News website asked the question: "Steve Slater: Criminal or Folk Hero?" One wonders if ABC is perhaps outsourcing its headline writing to India, because anyone who knows anything about America knows that, in this country, you can be both.
In case you're not familiar, Steven Slater is (or was) a flight attendant for the airline JetBlue who became a media -sensation after an encounter with an unruly passenger.
According to published reports, the passenger, who before takeoff had been involved in a near fistfight with another traveler over space in the overhead bins, continued to behave badly when the plane landed in New York. She was up before the plane came to a stop, yanking her suitcase out of the bin. When Slater tried to stop her, she cursed him and struck him on the head with the -luggage (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not clear).
At this point, Slater had had enough. He got on the plane's intercom and delivered the following soliloquy: "To the (bad word) who called me a (bad word) and told me to (bad word) off: (bad word) you! I've been in the business 28 (bad word) years. That's it. I'm done."
Then Slater popped the emergency slide, grabbed a couple of beers from the airplane fridge, slid out of the plane, walked to his car, drove home - and immediately passed into legend.
You might expect that the consensus would be that this was another example of arrogant and rude flight attendants throwing their weight around. But for some reason (perhaps the flamboyance of his exit), Slater became a symbol for all of the people who've had to deal with a rude and unreasonable public.
Bloggers and commenters hailed him as a hero. Folk singer Jonathan Mann even released a YouTube video called the "Ballad of Steven Slater." "Every day in a million ways," one of the verses goes, "he was subjected to the worst kind of impotent rage, like a bubble about to burst." (The chorus incorporates Steven's uncensored rant in its entirety, so you may not want to watch it at work.)
Many who commented told their own tales of having to deal with cranky, unreasonable and downright insane -customers. Having worked in a variety of public-contact jobs, I can certainly say I have some sympathy for them, for Steve Slater, and for anyone who's wanted to say, in the words of the old Johnny Paycheck chart-topper, "Take This Job and Shove It."
It should be noted, however, that we really don't know much about the passenger's story. Don't get me wrong, she behaved abominably, and nothing justifies hitting someone on the head with a loaded bag, but it's possible she was under some stress, too.
Has anyone considered that perhaps she was trying very hard to make a connection that the airline had put in -jeopardy because the freaking plane sat on the tarmac for an hour and a freaking half before takeoff and her -connecting flight left in 10 minutes and the stupid airline put that flight at a gate that was a 15-minute walk and a freaking train ride away?
(Why, yes, I have flown through Atlanta recently, why do you ask?)
Again, nothing justifies the passenger's behavior. We should all try to remember that whatever stress the airline is putting everyone through, it's (usually) not the flight attendant's fault. But anyone who's flown the unfriendly skies in the past few years understands a little about -"impotent rage" from the passenger's perspective too.
The thing about outlaws, though, is that, well, they did break the law. Slater was arrested at home (by a SWAT team, no less), and charged with criminal mischief, -reckless endangerment and trespassing. (I guess the last charge is because you're not allowed on the slide absent an emergency.)
The passenger who struck him was apparently not charged. But the people who shrink the seats more and more so as to cram passengers in like cattle, the people who are charging an outrageous fee to check luggage which they then lose, the people who make sure that -wherever you go, you first have to go 400 miles in the -opposite direction and have to stress over connecting with the flight that actually goes to your destination (see above) - no one's even talking about putting them on trial.
Maybe if we did, there'd be a little less "air rage" from both sides.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 15, 2010
A recent headline on the ABC News website asked the question: "Steve Slater: Criminal or Folk Hero?" One wonders if ABC is perhaps outsourcing its headline writing to India, because anyone who knows anything about America knows that, in this country, you can be both.
In case you're not familiar, Steven Slater is (or was) a flight attendant for the airline JetBlue who became a media -sensation after an encounter with an unruly passenger.
According to published reports, the passenger, who before takeoff had been involved in a near fistfight with another traveler over space in the overhead bins, continued to behave badly when the plane landed in New York. She was up before the plane came to a stop, yanking her suitcase out of the bin. When Slater tried to stop her, she cursed him and struck him on the head with the -luggage (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not clear).
At this point, Slater had had enough. He got on the plane's intercom and delivered the following soliloquy: "To the (bad word) who called me a (bad word) and told me to (bad word) off: (bad word) you! I've been in the business 28 (bad word) years. That's it. I'm done."
Then Slater popped the emergency slide, grabbed a couple of beers from the airplane fridge, slid out of the plane, walked to his car, drove home - and immediately passed into legend.
You might expect that the consensus would be that this was another example of arrogant and rude flight attendants throwing their weight around. But for some reason (perhaps the flamboyance of his exit), Slater became a symbol for all of the people who've had to deal with a rude and unreasonable public.
Bloggers and commenters hailed him as a hero. Folk singer Jonathan Mann even released a YouTube video called the "Ballad of Steven Slater." "Every day in a million ways," one of the verses goes, "he was subjected to the worst kind of impotent rage, like a bubble about to burst." (The chorus incorporates Steven's uncensored rant in its entirety, so you may not want to watch it at work.)
Many who commented told their own tales of having to deal with cranky, unreasonable and downright insane -customers. Having worked in a variety of public-contact jobs, I can certainly say I have some sympathy for them, for Steve Slater, and for anyone who's wanted to say, in the words of the old Johnny Paycheck chart-topper, "Take This Job and Shove It."
It should be noted, however, that we really don't know much about the passenger's story. Don't get me wrong, she behaved abominably, and nothing justifies hitting someone on the head with a loaded bag, but it's possible she was under some stress, too.
Has anyone considered that perhaps she was trying very hard to make a connection that the airline had put in -jeopardy because the freaking plane sat on the tarmac for an hour and a freaking half before takeoff and her -connecting flight left in 10 minutes and the stupid airline put that flight at a gate that was a 15-minute walk and a freaking train ride away?
(Why, yes, I have flown through Atlanta recently, why do you ask?)
Again, nothing justifies the passenger's behavior. We should all try to remember that whatever stress the airline is putting everyone through, it's (usually) not the flight attendant's fault. But anyone who's flown the unfriendly skies in the past few years understands a little about -"impotent rage" from the passenger's perspective too.
The thing about outlaws, though, is that, well, they did break the law. Slater was arrested at home (by a SWAT team, no less), and charged with criminal mischief, -reckless endangerment and trespassing. (I guess the last charge is because you're not allowed on the slide absent an emergency.)
The passenger who struck him was apparently not charged. But the people who shrink the seats more and more so as to cram passengers in like cattle, the people who are charging an outrageous fee to check luggage which they then lose, the people who make sure that -wherever you go, you first have to go 400 miles in the -opposite direction and have to stress over connecting with the flight that actually goes to your destination (see above) - no one's even talking about putting them on trial.
Maybe if we did, there'd be a little less "air rage" from both sides.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
Water: More Than a Gesture Needed From County
From The Pilot
By Carl Ramey - Sunday, August 15, 2010
Previously on this page, I reviewed Moore County's recent performance in dealing with other local governments on regional water issues.
As bad as that short-term performance has been, even worse has been the county's long-term stewardship of the water systems serving Pine-hurst and Seven Lakes. And the Board of Com-missioners' recent promise to return to the Summit's Water Task Force meetings, while helpful, doesn't erase that record.
Moore County got into the water business by buying the Seven Lakes system in 1990 and the Pinehurst system two years later. Ever since, citizens of Pinehurst and Seven Lakes have been totally dependent upon a county board (where they are either unrepresented or just "underrepresented") and a Public Utilities Department (MCPU) which is exempt from regulation by the N.C. Utilities Commission.
Although county officials like to pretend that they operate a countywide, regional water system, the reality is something different. Indeed, after two decades in the business, Moore County's water world still revolves around highly centralized operations in Pinehurst and Seven Lakes - where 95 percent of its customers reside and almost all of their rate-payer revenues are derived.
Being a good steward goes beyond supplying running water. It requires a comprehensive plan that both maintains the present and anticipates the future.
Stripped to essentials, the county's current water "plan" looks something like this: Do repairs and upgrades only as needed, reject or sidestep any effort to acquire surface water, resist joining with others to form any kind of regional entity to address pending and future needs, and, finally, continue to buy water from others (increasingly, those outside Moore County). This is not a plan, merely an exercise in short-term expediency.
To their credit, county officials did sit down with village officials on July 8 in a joint discussion of pending projects -- a productive counterpoint to a yearlong series of dust-ups and lingering misunderstandings.
However, other than improved atmospherics, the only real substance coming out of this session was that, after years of delay, (1) construction of desperately needed replacement lift stations at Lake Pinehurst is well under way; (2) construction of a badly needed elevated tank to replace two antiquated ones is near completion; and (3) one new ground well will come on line, and another out-of-service well will be restored to service, late this year, followed by an additional well sometime in 2012.
As to long-discussed, badly needed water and sewer repairs in Old Town, these appear, at best, stuck in the "modeling" or "design" stage.
While a good steward would never have allowed such vital assets in its core operating area to deteriorate to such an extent, other examples abound:
- The county long resisted or downplayed suggestions to test the fire flow pressure of hydrants and key distribution lines in Pinehurst - vital to saving lives and property. Only recently has it partially relented, by beginning a limited testing regimen.
- Instead of working with the village to achieve compliance with building codes for above-ground construction projects, the county, at least initially, challenged the village's jurisdiction.
- Instead of investigating and acting upon recommendations in the McGill Study concerning surface water at Wagram and Robbins, the county downplayed the former and kissed off the latter.
- Instead of pursuing surface water supplies, the county relentlessly relies on a declining number of ground wells in and around Pinehurst - even as the population in Pinehurst and surrounding areas continues to grow, and the pumping of those wells sometimes exceeds the recommended daily average.
Despite this checkered history, the county's only long-term goal is to continue stockpiling water purchase contracts. For the moment, buying water from others is cheaper than investing in new sources that the county might own. But this "cheaper is better" strategy is both risky and short-sighted.
It's risky because such purchases can quickly go bad when outside sources experience severe drought, a dramatic change in their own needs, or a change in politics. It's short-sighted because it pushes hard decisions down the road to others, and to a time in the future when acquiring such assets will likely be far more complicated and costly (if they are even available).
Finally, the county's go-it-alone, short-term strategy flies in the face of evolving regulatory and environmental trends. Its rejection of a regional approach is a bad deal, not only for Pinehurst and Seven Lakes, but for all communities of Moore County.
Carl R. Ramey, a former Washington communications attorney, lives in Pinehurst.
By Carl Ramey - Sunday, August 15, 2010
Previously on this page, I reviewed Moore County's recent performance in dealing with other local governments on regional water issues.
As bad as that short-term performance has been, even worse has been the county's long-term stewardship of the water systems serving Pine-hurst and Seven Lakes. And the Board of Com-missioners' recent promise to return to the Summit's Water Task Force meetings, while helpful, doesn't erase that record.
Moore County got into the water business by buying the Seven Lakes system in 1990 and the Pinehurst system two years later. Ever since, citizens of Pinehurst and Seven Lakes have been totally dependent upon a county board (where they are either unrepresented or just "underrepresented") and a Public Utilities Department (MCPU) which is exempt from regulation by the N.C. Utilities Commission.
Although county officials like to pretend that they operate a countywide, regional water system, the reality is something different. Indeed, after two decades in the business, Moore County's water world still revolves around highly centralized operations in Pinehurst and Seven Lakes - where 95 percent of its customers reside and almost all of their rate-payer revenues are derived.
Being a good steward goes beyond supplying running water. It requires a comprehensive plan that both maintains the present and anticipates the future.
Stripped to essentials, the county's current water "plan" looks something like this: Do repairs and upgrades only as needed, reject or sidestep any effort to acquire surface water, resist joining with others to form any kind of regional entity to address pending and future needs, and, finally, continue to buy water from others (increasingly, those outside Moore County). This is not a plan, merely an exercise in short-term expediency.
To their credit, county officials did sit down with village officials on July 8 in a joint discussion of pending projects -- a productive counterpoint to a yearlong series of dust-ups and lingering misunderstandings.
However, other than improved atmospherics, the only real substance coming out of this session was that, after years of delay, (1) construction of desperately needed replacement lift stations at Lake Pinehurst is well under way; (2) construction of a badly needed elevated tank to replace two antiquated ones is near completion; and (3) one new ground well will come on line, and another out-of-service well will be restored to service, late this year, followed by an additional well sometime in 2012.
As to long-discussed, badly needed water and sewer repairs in Old Town, these appear, at best, stuck in the "modeling" or "design" stage.
While a good steward would never have allowed such vital assets in its core operating area to deteriorate to such an extent, other examples abound:
- The county long resisted or downplayed suggestions to test the fire flow pressure of hydrants and key distribution lines in Pinehurst - vital to saving lives and property. Only recently has it partially relented, by beginning a limited testing regimen.
- Instead of working with the village to achieve compliance with building codes for above-ground construction projects, the county, at least initially, challenged the village's jurisdiction.
- Instead of investigating and acting upon recommendations in the McGill Study concerning surface water at Wagram and Robbins, the county downplayed the former and kissed off the latter.
- Instead of pursuing surface water supplies, the county relentlessly relies on a declining number of ground wells in and around Pinehurst - even as the population in Pinehurst and surrounding areas continues to grow, and the pumping of those wells sometimes exceeds the recommended daily average.
Despite this checkered history, the county's only long-term goal is to continue stockpiling water purchase contracts. For the moment, buying water from others is cheaper than investing in new sources that the county might own. But this "cheaper is better" strategy is both risky and short-sighted.
It's risky because such purchases can quickly go bad when outside sources experience severe drought, a dramatic change in their own needs, or a change in politics. It's short-sighted because it pushes hard decisions down the road to others, and to a time in the future when acquiring such assets will likely be far more complicated and costly (if they are even available).
Finally, the county's go-it-alone, short-term strategy flies in the face of evolving regulatory and environmental trends. Its rejection of a regional approach is a bad deal, not only for Pinehurst and Seven Lakes, but for all communities of Moore County.
Carl R. Ramey, a former Washington communications attorney, lives in Pinehurst.
About that Islamic Center Proposed for Ground Zero
From The Pilot
By Paul Dunn - Sunday, August 15, 2010
In 1997, years before the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks on New York's World Trade Center, members of Manhattan's Muslim community had officially begun steps to construct Cordoba House.
This was to be a large 13-story Islamic cultural and prayer -center two blocks north of what would ultimately and tragically become Ground Zero - site of the terrorists' air attacks and resultant deaths of about 2,750 victims, including, paradoxically, many Muslims.
Without the 9/11 attacks, the center would have been built years ago and now be well attended by devout Muslims and visitors, just as traditional mosques and cultural centers are in the other boroughs of New York City.
To many in the so-called "Bible Belt," the idea of an Islamic cultural center and prayer site is an alien concept. That's because most of the more than 1,200 mosques in the United States are found in California, New York and Michigan, where Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Turks and Arabs from every Islamic nation live in peace, many for generations.
Historically, however, North Carolina is the exception. Our state has been particularly welcoming to Muslims. There are five mosques in Charlotte, four in Raleigh, three in Winston-Salem and Fayetteville, two in Asheville, Durham, Matthews, Wilmington and one each in Clemmons, Conover, Dudley, Gastonia, Morganton, New Bern and Rocky Mount.
The controversial Cordoba project will add about $100 million to Manhattan's already weak economy, including new employment, land and construction costs. Had 9/11 not occurred, few would have opposed such a holy shrine.
But now Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Fox News' talking heads and scores of demagogic politicians loudly oppose the center's construction in lower Manhattan. They and some 9/11 survivor families argue that it will be viewed as "the triumph of Islam over the United States."
Other 9/11 families have told New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that they favor the project as a healing presence in the once united city. Many others support the center as long as it is built far away from the attack site.
Three-term Mayor Bloomberg favors the Islamic center. He's been supported in his stand by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, which just voted 9-0 to deny granting landmark protection to aged buildings in the area of lower Manhattan where the Islamic center will be built. The site is presently occupied by a badly damaged, 152-year-old eyesore, an abandoned clothing warehouse with the Monopoly-board address of Park Place and Broadway.
A liberal Republican of Reform Judaism belief, Mayor Bloomberg has taken a strong stand that is belatedly supported by the Anti-Defamation League, which originally opposed the Cordoba project, preferring it be located elsewhere in the city.
The ADL now agrees that "to fight it is counterproductive to the healing process." The mayor told New Yorkers that "to cave in to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists - and we should not stand for that. There is no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy."
Although I haven't heard the argument made that the Cordoba center can be viewed as a fitting memorial to innocent Muslims killed on 9/11, a good case can be made that it will.
Here's The New York Times' list of Muslims murdered on 9/11:
Samad Afridi, Ashraf Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad, Umar Ahmad, Azam Ahsan, Ahmed Ali, Tariq Amandullah, Touri Bolourchi, Salauddin Chaudhury, Abdul Chowdhury, Mohammad Chowdhury, Jamal Desantis, Ramzi Douani.
Saleem Farooqi, Syed Fatha, Osman Gani, Mohammad Hamdani, Salman Hamdani, (a 23-year old NYPD cadet, part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student and devout Muslim), Aisha Harris, Shakila Hoque, Nabid hossain, Shahzad Hussein, Talat Hussein, Mohammed Jawarta, Arsian Khakwani, Asim Khan, Ataullah Khan, Ayub Khan, Qasim Khan, Sarah Khan, Taimour Khan, Yasmeen Khan, Zahida Khan, Badruddin Lakhani, Omar Malick, Nurul Miah, Mubarak Mohammad, Boyie Mohammed, Raza Mujtaba.
Omar Namoos, Mujeb Qazi, Tarranum Rahim, Ehesham Raja, Ameenia Rasool, Naveed Rehman, Yusuf Saad, Rahma Salie and unborn child, Shoman Samad, Asad Samir, Khalid Shabid, Mohammed Shajahan, Naseema Simjee, Jamil Swaati, Sanober Syed, Robert Talhami, Michaqel Theodoridis and W. Wahid.
Muslims killed that day who were American citizens loved their country not a whit less than any other victim of al-Qaida's wrath.
Paul R. Dunn, who spent most of his business career in Manhattan, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at paulandbj@nc.rr.com.
By Paul Dunn - Sunday, August 15, 2010
In 1997, years before the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks on New York's World Trade Center, members of Manhattan's Muslim community had officially begun steps to construct Cordoba House.
This was to be a large 13-story Islamic cultural and prayer -center two blocks north of what would ultimately and tragically become Ground Zero - site of the terrorists' air attacks and resultant deaths of about 2,750 victims, including, paradoxically, many Muslims.
Without the 9/11 attacks, the center would have been built years ago and now be well attended by devout Muslims and visitors, just as traditional mosques and cultural centers are in the other boroughs of New York City.
To many in the so-called "Bible Belt," the idea of an Islamic cultural center and prayer site is an alien concept. That's because most of the more than 1,200 mosques in the United States are found in California, New York and Michigan, where Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Turks and Arabs from every Islamic nation live in peace, many for generations.
Historically, however, North Carolina is the exception. Our state has been particularly welcoming to Muslims. There are five mosques in Charlotte, four in Raleigh, three in Winston-Salem and Fayetteville, two in Asheville, Durham, Matthews, Wilmington and one each in Clemmons, Conover, Dudley, Gastonia, Morganton, New Bern and Rocky Mount.
The controversial Cordoba project will add about $100 million to Manhattan's already weak economy, including new employment, land and construction costs. Had 9/11 not occurred, few would have opposed such a holy shrine.
But now Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Fox News' talking heads and scores of demagogic politicians loudly oppose the center's construction in lower Manhattan. They and some 9/11 survivor families argue that it will be viewed as "the triumph of Islam over the United States."
Other 9/11 families have told New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that they favor the project as a healing presence in the once united city. Many others support the center as long as it is built far away from the attack site.
Three-term Mayor Bloomberg favors the Islamic center. He's been supported in his stand by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, which just voted 9-0 to deny granting landmark protection to aged buildings in the area of lower Manhattan where the Islamic center will be built. The site is presently occupied by a badly damaged, 152-year-old eyesore, an abandoned clothing warehouse with the Monopoly-board address of Park Place and Broadway.
A liberal Republican of Reform Judaism belief, Mayor Bloomberg has taken a strong stand that is belatedly supported by the Anti-Defamation League, which originally opposed the Cordoba project, preferring it be located elsewhere in the city.
The ADL now agrees that "to fight it is counterproductive to the healing process." The mayor told New Yorkers that "to cave in to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists - and we should not stand for that. There is no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy."
Although I haven't heard the argument made that the Cordoba center can be viewed as a fitting memorial to innocent Muslims killed on 9/11, a good case can be made that it will.
Here's The New York Times' list of Muslims murdered on 9/11:
Samad Afridi, Ashraf Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad, Umar Ahmad, Azam Ahsan, Ahmed Ali, Tariq Amandullah, Touri Bolourchi, Salauddin Chaudhury, Abdul Chowdhury, Mohammad Chowdhury, Jamal Desantis, Ramzi Douani.
Saleem Farooqi, Syed Fatha, Osman Gani, Mohammad Hamdani, Salman Hamdani, (a 23-year old NYPD cadet, part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student and devout Muslim), Aisha Harris, Shakila Hoque, Nabid hossain, Shahzad Hussein, Talat Hussein, Mohammed Jawarta, Arsian Khakwani, Asim Khan, Ataullah Khan, Ayub Khan, Qasim Khan, Sarah Khan, Taimour Khan, Yasmeen Khan, Zahida Khan, Badruddin Lakhani, Omar Malick, Nurul Miah, Mubarak Mohammad, Boyie Mohammed, Raza Mujtaba.
Omar Namoos, Mujeb Qazi, Tarranum Rahim, Ehesham Raja, Ameenia Rasool, Naveed Rehman, Yusuf Saad, Rahma Salie and unborn child, Shoman Samad, Asad Samir, Khalid Shabid, Mohammed Shajahan, Naseema Simjee, Jamil Swaati, Sanober Syed, Robert Talhami, Michaqel Theodoridis and W. Wahid.
Muslims killed that day who were American citizens loved their country not a whit less than any other victim of al-Qaida's wrath.
Paul R. Dunn, who spent most of his business career in Manhattan, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at paulandbj@nc.rr.com.
Used plastic + hemp = lumber
From Charlotte Observer
Dr. Na Lu, an assistant professor at UNCC's Department of Engineering Technology, has created a material she believes may outperform composite lumber and wood lumber in many uses, and which has potential to be used in the residential and light commercial building industry.
In her lab at UNCC, Luna, as she prefers to be called, holds a dog bone-shaped sample of her creation: a beige plastic woven with threads of what looks like horsehair. "Hemp," Luna says, and points to a fluffy pile of the fibers on the table.
Unlike much present-day composite lumber, Luna's product substitutes hemp fibers for more typical chipped wood often mixed with virgin plastic. And unlike pressure-treated wood, the hemp material contains no toxic heavy metals.
Wood fiber is structured like a bundle of straws, she said, but hemp's crystalline structure gives it greater mechanical strength. She demonstrates by holding out a handful of hemp fibers to pull.
"This (hemp composite) material performs up to 4,000 to 6,000 psi (pounds per square inch)," Luna said. "That's as strong as medium-strength concrete."
At the same time, the hemp-recycled plastic material is lighter than regular composite lumber, she said.
Hemp may be a promising building material, but the stuff Luna uses isn't going to get anyone arrested. It's industrial hemp, with an extremely low content of THC, the psychoactive substance for which marijuana is known.
Hemp is just one key to the new material; the other is recycled plastic bottles. In the United States, about 20 billion plastic bottles are used annually, and just 18 percent of those get recycled, Luna said. "The niche of what we do here is ... we used HDPE recycled plastic, as opposed to resin epoxy," she said.
Where things get wet
Unlike regular lumber, the experimental material is moisture- and insect-resistant, and hemp grows a lot faster than wood. Hemp fiber polymers are being used in the automotive industry in Europe for car interiors, Luna said, but she sees a future for the material in buildings, particularly in places where wood rot is a problem.
"The first application I really would like to see is any point where there is water contact in a civil application - a retaining wall, decking, bridges," she said.
While it would cost more to produce the material today than it does to produce wood lumber, the life cycle cost would be cheaper and, over time, with a greater scale of production, she believes the cost to the consumer would fall.
For Luna, an interest in accomplishing conventional goals through unconventional means came early. Born in China, she said she saw firsthand the difficulty of a heavily populated nation struggling with high energy costs. After moving to the States, Luna earned her doctorate from Clemson University. In the process, she worked with a professor in Arizona in constructing a school from straw bales coated with cement.
Testing, testing
To prepare hemp composite samples for testing, Luna and her student assistant, John Larson, first extrude pellets of recycled plastic. Larson, a rising sophomore from Stanley majoring in construction management, treats the hemp fiber to remove its oil and odor. He points out a tensile testing machine used to pull the fibers and take pictures with a high-speed camera of how the material reacts and deforms in each moment.
Larson and Luna sandwich the strands between layers of plastic, and test the finished sample under a static load and a dynamic load (a moving load, such as that produced by wind or water) for changes in strength at various temperatures and humidity levels.
"We tried chopping them up," Larson said of one of many experiments with the fibers. That didn't prove strong enough, so now they're turning out samples with longer hemp strands.
"It's tedious," Luna said of the yearlong process of trial and error. "But once you see the material improve ... you love it."
Listening to Mother Nature
In designing materials for building, it makes sense to take cues from nature, Luna said. "Mother Nature is much smarter than us," she said. "I really respect nature and how things are designed."
In the lab, Luna and Larson demonstrate the testing of a sample of the hemp composite. The "dog bone" slides into a vise-like apparatus on a strength-testing machine and, as Luna watches a glowing computer screen, the machine pulls the sample until at last it snaps, at 5,692 psi.
"Wow!" Luna says, surprised. Larson peers at the computer with her and they marvel at the test results, which were achieved at 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 35 percent humidity - variables, Luna says, which are important because a material's performance changes with moisture and heat.
The next challenge will be making the material more fireproof. But already a lumber company and an architectural firm have expressed interest in it, Luna said.
In addition to exploring hemp and recycled plastic as a lumber substitute, Luna is looking at combining recycled plastic with bamboo fibers. She's also working on a new class of thermoelectric materials to harvest waste heat energy and convert it into electrical energy without moving parts.
UNCC researchers create a formula for recycling old bottles into new building materials
A UNC Charlotte researcher with a passion for sustainability is creating a new building material out of recycled plastic bottles and an ancient grass.Dr. Na Lu, an assistant professor at UNCC's Department of Engineering Technology, has created a material she believes may outperform composite lumber and wood lumber in many uses, and which has potential to be used in the residential and light commercial building industry.
In her lab at UNCC, Luna, as she prefers to be called, holds a dog bone-shaped sample of her creation: a beige plastic woven with threads of what looks like horsehair. "Hemp," Luna says, and points to a fluffy pile of the fibers on the table.
Unlike much present-day composite lumber, Luna's product substitutes hemp fibers for more typical chipped wood often mixed with virgin plastic. And unlike pressure-treated wood, the hemp material contains no toxic heavy metals.
Wood fiber is structured like a bundle of straws, she said, but hemp's crystalline structure gives it greater mechanical strength. She demonstrates by holding out a handful of hemp fibers to pull.
"This (hemp composite) material performs up to 4,000 to 6,000 psi (pounds per square inch)," Luna said. "That's as strong as medium-strength concrete."
At the same time, the hemp-recycled plastic material is lighter than regular composite lumber, she said.
Hemp may be a promising building material, but the stuff Luna uses isn't going to get anyone arrested. It's industrial hemp, with an extremely low content of THC, the psychoactive substance for which marijuana is known.
Hemp is just one key to the new material; the other is recycled plastic bottles. In the United States, about 20 billion plastic bottles are used annually, and just 18 percent of those get recycled, Luna said. "The niche of what we do here is ... we used HDPE recycled plastic, as opposed to resin epoxy," she said.
Where things get wet
Unlike regular lumber, the experimental material is moisture- and insect-resistant, and hemp grows a lot faster than wood. Hemp fiber polymers are being used in the automotive industry in Europe for car interiors, Luna said, but she sees a future for the material in buildings, particularly in places where wood rot is a problem.
"The first application I really would like to see is any point where there is water contact in a civil application - a retaining wall, decking, bridges," she said.
While it would cost more to produce the material today than it does to produce wood lumber, the life cycle cost would be cheaper and, over time, with a greater scale of production, she believes the cost to the consumer would fall.
For Luna, an interest in accomplishing conventional goals through unconventional means came early. Born in China, she said she saw firsthand the difficulty of a heavily populated nation struggling with high energy costs. After moving to the States, Luna earned her doctorate from Clemson University. In the process, she worked with a professor in Arizona in constructing a school from straw bales coated with cement.
Testing, testing
To prepare hemp composite samples for testing, Luna and her student assistant, John Larson, first extrude pellets of recycled plastic. Larson, a rising sophomore from Stanley majoring in construction management, treats the hemp fiber to remove its oil and odor. He points out a tensile testing machine used to pull the fibers and take pictures with a high-speed camera of how the material reacts and deforms in each moment.
Larson and Luna sandwich the strands between layers of plastic, and test the finished sample under a static load and a dynamic load (a moving load, such as that produced by wind or water) for changes in strength at various temperatures and humidity levels.
"We tried chopping them up," Larson said of one of many experiments with the fibers. That didn't prove strong enough, so now they're turning out samples with longer hemp strands.
"It's tedious," Luna said of the yearlong process of trial and error. "But once you see the material improve ... you love it."
Listening to Mother Nature
In designing materials for building, it makes sense to take cues from nature, Luna said. "Mother Nature is much smarter than us," she said. "I really respect nature and how things are designed."
In the lab, Luna and Larson demonstrate the testing of a sample of the hemp composite. The "dog bone" slides into a vise-like apparatus on a strength-testing machine and, as Luna watches a glowing computer screen, the machine pulls the sample until at last it snaps, at 5,692 psi.
"Wow!" Luna says, surprised. Larson peers at the computer with her and they marvel at the test results, which were achieved at 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 35 percent humidity - variables, Luna says, which are important because a material's performance changes with moisture and heat.
The next challenge will be making the material more fireproof. But already a lumber company and an architectural firm have expressed interest in it, Luna said.
In addition to exploring hemp and recycled plastic as a lumber substitute, Luna is looking at combining recycled plastic with bamboo fibers. She's also working on a new class of thermoelectric materials to harvest waste heat energy and convert it into electrical energy without moving parts.
Amber Veverka: amberveverka@carolina.rr.com
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Polarizing Again Over the 'M' Word
From The Pilot:
By Steve Bouser - Wednesday, August 11, 2010
What's in a word? Plenty. In America, we're getting ready to tear ourselves apart over a single one of them: "marriage."
It's a crying shame - all the more so because there is, or was, an easy way around this seeming impasse. All it would take is just a little more give-and-take and less stridency on both sides. (Why does everything these days have to come down to "sides"?)
All this is going to sound a bit familiar to those who may remember that I wrote about this back in 2005 and touched on aspects of it again early last year - both times when the gay marriage issue had previously reared its head. But the question has roared forth with such force and potential divisiveness that I can't resist having another (no doubt futile) go at it.
The matter has taken on its current urgency, of course, because of events unfolding in California. First the state legislature legalized gay marriage. Then the people voted to outlaw it again. Now a federal judge has overturned the results of that referendum. And soon the whole polarizing, seesawing mess will land in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that's all we'll be hearing yelled about for months on Fox News and MSNBC.
It never had to come to this. And it wouldn't have if legislatures and courts everywhere had listened to a bit of advice the first time it was offered. Simply put, it goes like this: Government at all levels should get out of the marriage business altogether.
I know. It sounds crazy. But hold on a minute.
When Americans are asked by pollsters what they think of "gay marriage," most have problems with it. Marriage, they feel, is supposed to be between a man and a woman. That's not just what the Bible says. It's also what the dictionary says.
But in many surveys, if you ask those same Americans whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones when it comes to things like insurance and joint tax returns and hospital visitation rights and inheritance laws, most answer yes. Though the concept of equal rights passes muster, the sticking point is often that pesky "m" word. Folks just can't get around it. I'm not sure I blame them.
I first got off on this subject five years ago, when Paul Loscocco, an unknown state legislator in Massachusetts, achieved his 15 minutes of fame after offering an idea that I thought was brilliant in its simplicity.
"I am proposing," he said, "that everybody - gay or straight - gets the same civil union, recognized by the commonwealth with the same package of rights and benefits."
If a couple then wanted to get "married," they would have to go see their preacher, priest, rabbi, imam - whatever, as long as they could find one willing to bless the union and perform the ceremony. The state would have no more official interest in that, Loscocco said, than it now does in whether you've been baptized confirmed or bar-mitzvahed
Asked what the legislature would then call the relationship formerly known as marriage, he famously replied, "I don't care. We could call it liverwurst."
All it would take, it seems to me, would be for gay and lesbian couples to take one small step back from the brink, resolve to take less of an in-your-face approach, and embrace Loscocco's fundamental compromise. It would still allow them to join in an officially recognized union, called liverwurst or whatever, according them the same rights as everybody else. They could then drive over to their church, get "married," and refer to themselves as that for the rest of their lives, and nobody in the government would take official notice or care.
In reality, I'm sure it's too late for any of that at this point. That train has left the station. Massachusetts ignored Loscocco and became the first state in the union to legalize gay marriage, and several other states have since joined it. I imagine they all will get caught up in the looming Supreme Court brouhaha, and our already dangerously fragmenting society will split along yet another fault line.
Too bad. But it didn't need to happen.
Steve Bouser is editor of The Pilot. Contact him at (910) 693-2470 or by e-mail at sbouser@thepilot.com.
By Steve Bouser - Wednesday, August 11, 2010
What's in a word? Plenty. In America, we're getting ready to tear ourselves apart over a single one of them: "marriage."
It's a crying shame - all the more so because there is, or was, an easy way around this seeming impasse. All it would take is just a little more give-and-take and less stridency on both sides. (Why does everything these days have to come down to "sides"?)
All this is going to sound a bit familiar to those who may remember that I wrote about this back in 2005 and touched on aspects of it again early last year - both times when the gay marriage issue had previously reared its head. But the question has roared forth with such force and potential divisiveness that I can't resist having another (no doubt futile) go at it.
The matter has taken on its current urgency, of course, because of events unfolding in California. First the state legislature legalized gay marriage. Then the people voted to outlaw it again. Now a federal judge has overturned the results of that referendum. And soon the whole polarizing, seesawing mess will land in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that's all we'll be hearing yelled about for months on Fox News and MSNBC.
It never had to come to this. And it wouldn't have if legislatures and courts everywhere had listened to a bit of advice the first time it was offered. Simply put, it goes like this: Government at all levels should get out of the marriage business altogether.
I know. It sounds crazy. But hold on a minute.
When Americans are asked by pollsters what they think of "gay marriage," most have problems with it. Marriage, they feel, is supposed to be between a man and a woman. That's not just what the Bible says. It's also what the dictionary says.
But in many surveys, if you ask those same Americans whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones when it comes to things like insurance and joint tax returns and hospital visitation rights and inheritance laws, most answer yes. Though the concept of equal rights passes muster, the sticking point is often that pesky "m" word. Folks just can't get around it. I'm not sure I blame them.
I first got off on this subject five years ago, when Paul Loscocco, an unknown state legislator in Massachusetts, achieved his 15 minutes of fame after offering an idea that I thought was brilliant in its simplicity.
"I am proposing," he said, "that everybody - gay or straight - gets the same civil union, recognized by the commonwealth with the same package of rights and benefits."
If a couple then wanted to get "married," they would have to go see their preacher, priest, rabbi, imam - whatever, as long as they could find one willing to bless the union and perform the ceremony. The state would have no more official interest in that, Loscocco said, than it now does in whether you've been baptized confirmed or bar-mitzvahed
Asked what the legislature would then call the relationship formerly known as marriage, he famously replied, "I don't care. We could call it liverwurst."
All it would take, it seems to me, would be for gay and lesbian couples to take one small step back from the brink, resolve to take less of an in-your-face approach, and embrace Loscocco's fundamental compromise. It would still allow them to join in an officially recognized union, called liverwurst or whatever, according them the same rights as everybody else. They could then drive over to their church, get "married," and refer to themselves as that for the rest of their lives, and nobody in the government would take official notice or care.
In reality, I'm sure it's too late for any of that at this point. That train has left the station. Massachusetts ignored Loscocco and became the first state in the union to legalize gay marriage, and several other states have since joined it. I imagine they all will get caught up in the looming Supreme Court brouhaha, and our already dangerously fragmenting society will split along yet another fault line.
Too bad. But it didn't need to happen.
Steve Bouser is editor of The Pilot. Contact him at (910) 693-2470 or by e-mail at sbouser@thepilot.com.
Can N.C. up the ante on renewable energy?
From Indyweek.com
by Bob Geary
by Bob Geary
When the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 3 in 2007, it was an important step toward using more renewable energy sources for electricity in North Carolina—and a step away from coal, and perhaps from nuclear power as well.
Since then, however, renewable-energy technologies have blossomed to the point that the modest goals established by SB 3 are already outdated. A spate of reputable studies indicate that North Carolina should set its sights far higher. They show that renewable sources—including solar cells, offshore wind turbines, biofuels and hydropower—combined with strong energy efficiency programs, could account for at least 40 percent of the state's electricity needs within 15 years.
North Carolina was the 29th state, but the first in the Southeast, to adopt a minimum requirement for the use of renewable power sources by the electric utilities. But North Carolina's REPS—short for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard—requires just 12.5 percent of electricity that is sold to come from renewable sources, and energy efficiency by 2020. Other states have more aggressive benchmarks: New York calls for 29 percent by 2015, and California, 33 percent by 2020.
"There is no question that North Carolina can do much more than 12.5 percent with energy efficiency and renewables," says Elizabeth Ouzts, state director of Environment North Carolina, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. "SB 3 was a great first step, but there's so much more we can do, and we need to put the policies in place that can help make it happen."
Exactly what those policies should be, however, is a much-debated subject in progressive circles leading up to the 2011 legislative term.
In a recent report, Environment N.C. found that solar power could provide 2 percent of the state's electricity by 2020 and 14 percent by 2030. To reach those goals, North Carolina would need to grow solar-cell installations by 54 percent annually—what California has done in the last decade.
After that, from 2020 to 2030, a growth rate of 20 percent per year would be sufficient.
Those might seem like daunting targets, but according to Environment N.C., they're not. In 2008, North Carolina increased solar-power capacity by 600 percent with the opening of several solar "farms" like the one at SAS in Cary.
Installing solar panels on 100,000 rooftops over the next 10 years, and on 700,000 rooftops by 2030, would take North Carolina halfway to its goals, the report found, with SAS-scale installations accounting for the rest.
As for wind, a 2009 study done for the General Assembly by University of North Carolina researchers indicated that there's enough offshore wind power within 50 miles of the state's coastline to meet all of the state's current electricity needs.
The federal government has divided the coastline into 311 tracts, each measuring nine square miles. If 45 of them were developed as offshore wind farms, they could supply 20 percent of the state's electricity.
UNC and Duke Energy have since announced a demonstration project in the Pamlico Sound, testing up to three wind turbines for cost, effect on migratory birds and other environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
The North Carolina studies comport with an analysis by the World Resources Institute of "clean power opportunities" in the southeastern United States. In North Carolina, the institute study found, renewables could supply 40 percent of the state's electricity by 2025. Costs would be comparable to those of conventional power sources—coal, nuclear, natural gas—but with major advantages in air quality, reduced water consumption and zero "climate impacts," it said.
The institute analysis didn't include energy-efficiency programs. But a 2009 scorecard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy did. It rated North Carolina 26th of the 50 states for efficiency, including state building codes and utility-sponsored incentive programs. With more aggressive policies, the council study found, North Carolina could reduce electricity usage by almost one-fourth by 2025. In the next 20 years, renewables (40 percent) combined with energy-efficiency (24 percent) could account for nearly two-thirds of the state's electric-power needs.
Today, renewables account for just 3 percent of the state's electricity, with nearly all coming from biofuels and hydropower. Coal accounts for nearly two-thirds, nuclear for 31 percent.
To reach these goals, however, advocates of renewable power will again need to grapple with nuclear power. When SB 3 was enacted, the state's investor-owned utilities—Duke Energy and Progress Energy—insisted that the Legislature include a provision guaranteeing that any money the companies spend on nuclear plants, no matter how much, must be compensated with higher rates.
The CWIP provision (for construction work in progress) assured that the utilities would recover nuclear plant costs in any rate case. But now, Duke Energy is lobbying for SB 3 to be changed so that utilities are compensated for CWIP costs as they're incurred, without an overall rate review.
For utility customers, rate increases related to nuclear plant construction costs would come sooner; any savings resulting from the actual production of nuclear power would come later.
Duke Energy officials (but not Progress Energy) pitched the CWIP change in a recent meeting with legislative leaders and a few "legislative skeptics," says state Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, a self-described "skeptic."
"When they were arguing for SB 3," Harrison said, "the utility lobbyists would say the CWIP provision they were after was better [for ratepayers] than the ones in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Now they're back asking for what they have in the other states."
Harrison worries that if the Legislature reopens SB 3, including the 12.5 percent target, it will have to consider the CWIP rule, too. "It's very frustrating," she adds, "because, as a veteran of these utility debates, I can tell you the utilities always win."
The alternative, she suggests, is to leave the REPS target alone while enacting policies to push the state past it anyway.
Such policies could include long-term "feed-in" rates for solar- and wind-farm developers who sell power to the utilities, which would help them raise capital, Ouzts says.
At the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association, whose members include companies selling solar, wind and energy-efficiency products, Deputy Director Paul Quinlan says the options are under debate by groups working with the Energy Policy Council, which is closely affiliated with Gov. Bev Perdue.
Four council groups, working on renewables, efficiency, carbon emissions and transportation, have a mid-September deadline for reporting, prior to the next scheduled EPC meeting Sept. 24.
State Sen. Josh Stein, D-Wake, who also attended the session with Duke Energy, said he understands Harrison's hesitance about reopening SB 3. "Whenever you have complicated and delicately negotiated legislation," Stein says, "different groups will be nervous about revisiting it."
But Stein thinks the untapped potential for renewable power and energy efficiency in North Carolina is too great not to take a fresh look. "I think positioning North Carolina for a clean-energy future is what we need to do."
Since then, however, renewable-energy technologies have blossomed to the point that the modest goals established by SB 3 are already outdated. A spate of reputable studies indicate that North Carolina should set its sights far higher. They show that renewable sources—including solar cells, offshore wind turbines, biofuels and hydropower—combined with strong energy efficiency programs, could account for at least 40 percent of the state's electricity needs within 15 years.
North Carolina was the 29th state, but the first in the Southeast, to adopt a minimum requirement for the use of renewable power sources by the electric utilities. But North Carolina's REPS—short for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard—requires just 12.5 percent of electricity that is sold to come from renewable sources, and energy efficiency by 2020. Other states have more aggressive benchmarks: New York calls for 29 percent by 2015, and California, 33 percent by 2020.
"There is no question that North Carolina can do much more than 12.5 percent with energy efficiency and renewables," says Elizabeth Ouzts, state director of Environment North Carolina, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. "SB 3 was a great first step, but there's so much more we can do, and we need to put the policies in place that can help make it happen."
Exactly what those policies should be, however, is a much-debated subject in progressive circles leading up to the 2011 legislative term.
In a recent report, Environment N.C. found that solar power could provide 2 percent of the state's electricity by 2020 and 14 percent by 2030. To reach those goals, North Carolina would need to grow solar-cell installations by 54 percent annually—what California has done in the last decade.
After that, from 2020 to 2030, a growth rate of 20 percent per year would be sufficient.
Those might seem like daunting targets, but according to Environment N.C., they're not. In 2008, North Carolina increased solar-power capacity by 600 percent with the opening of several solar "farms" like the one at SAS in Cary.
Installing solar panels on 100,000 rooftops over the next 10 years, and on 700,000 rooftops by 2030, would take North Carolina halfway to its goals, the report found, with SAS-scale installations accounting for the rest.
As for wind, a 2009 study done for the General Assembly by University of North Carolina researchers indicated that there's enough offshore wind power within 50 miles of the state's coastline to meet all of the state's current electricity needs.
The federal government has divided the coastline into 311 tracts, each measuring nine square miles. If 45 of them were developed as offshore wind farms, they could supply 20 percent of the state's electricity.
UNC and Duke Energy have since announced a demonstration project in the Pamlico Sound, testing up to three wind turbines for cost, effect on migratory birds and other environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
The North Carolina studies comport with an analysis by the World Resources Institute of "clean power opportunities" in the southeastern United States. In North Carolina, the institute study found, renewables could supply 40 percent of the state's electricity by 2025. Costs would be comparable to those of conventional power sources—coal, nuclear, natural gas—but with major advantages in air quality, reduced water consumption and zero "climate impacts," it said.
The institute analysis didn't include energy-efficiency programs. But a 2009 scorecard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy did. It rated North Carolina 26th of the 50 states for efficiency, including state building codes and utility-sponsored incentive programs. With more aggressive policies, the council study found, North Carolina could reduce electricity usage by almost one-fourth by 2025. In the next 20 years, renewables (40 percent) combined with energy-efficiency (24 percent) could account for nearly two-thirds of the state's electric-power needs.
Today, renewables account for just 3 percent of the state's electricity, with nearly all coming from biofuels and hydropower. Coal accounts for nearly two-thirds, nuclear for 31 percent.
To reach these goals, however, advocates of renewable power will again need to grapple with nuclear power. When SB 3 was enacted, the state's investor-owned utilities—Duke Energy and Progress Energy—insisted that the Legislature include a provision guaranteeing that any money the companies spend on nuclear plants, no matter how much, must be compensated with higher rates.
The CWIP provision (for construction work in progress) assured that the utilities would recover nuclear plant costs in any rate case. But now, Duke Energy is lobbying for SB 3 to be changed so that utilities are compensated for CWIP costs as they're incurred, without an overall rate review.
For utility customers, rate increases related to nuclear plant construction costs would come sooner; any savings resulting from the actual production of nuclear power would come later.
Duke Energy officials (but not Progress Energy) pitched the CWIP change in a recent meeting with legislative leaders and a few "legislative skeptics," says state Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, a self-described "skeptic."
"When they were arguing for SB 3," Harrison said, "the utility lobbyists would say the CWIP provision they were after was better [for ratepayers] than the ones in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Now they're back asking for what they have in the other states."
Harrison worries that if the Legislature reopens SB 3, including the 12.5 percent target, it will have to consider the CWIP rule, too. "It's very frustrating," she adds, "because, as a veteran of these utility debates, I can tell you the utilities always win."
The alternative, she suggests, is to leave the REPS target alone while enacting policies to push the state past it anyway.
Such policies could include long-term "feed-in" rates for solar- and wind-farm developers who sell power to the utilities, which would help them raise capital, Ouzts says.
At the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association, whose members include companies selling solar, wind and energy-efficiency products, Deputy Director Paul Quinlan says the options are under debate by groups working with the Energy Policy Council, which is closely affiliated with Gov. Bev Perdue.
Four council groups, working on renewables, efficiency, carbon emissions and transportation, have a mid-September deadline for reporting, prior to the next scheduled EPC meeting Sept. 24.
State Sen. Josh Stein, D-Wake, who also attended the session with Duke Energy, said he understands Harrison's hesitance about reopening SB 3. "Whenever you have complicated and delicately negotiated legislation," Stein says, "different groups will be nervous about revisiting it."
But Stein thinks the untapped potential for renewable power and energy efficiency in North Carolina is too great not to take a fresh look. "I think positioning North Carolina for a clean-energy future is what we need to do."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)