Category Archives: Law

Charter school bait and switch

Proponents of the state-forced charter school constitutional amendment Mr. Moneybags on the November ballot have a website that is full of bait and switch. Most of it is about what they claim are the benefits of charter schools. But that’s not what the referendum is about. Local school boards can already authorize charter schools, and many of them have. The referendum would change the Georgia Constitution to authorize an appointed state board to force charter schools on local elected school boards that don’t want them, granting more money per student than in public schools, with the difference to be made up from local property and sales taxes. The most substantive thing I have found on the proponents’ website says that last is not so, but unconvincingly.

Tony Roberts, President of Georgia Charter Schools Association wrote to All Charter School Leaders and Board Members 7 August 2012, Response to Letter from Herb Garrett of Georgia Superintendents Association,

Tony Roberts One final, but important point, local school superintendents and board members were adamantly against any local dollars going to charter schools that were denied by a local school board. The final version of HB 797 was negotiated to ensure that was the case — the language is written right there into the law. So, to recap, they insist on no local money going to state-approved charters, and then get upset about the state money going to charters.

Curiously, he doesn’t cite that purported language. The closest thing I can find in HB 797 is a paragraph I already quoted:

Continue reading →

Remerton City Council votes today @ RCC 2012-09-10

Strickland Mill For Sale Tonight the Remerton City Council votes on the old Strickland Mill at 1853 West Gordon Street, same item as discussed 4 June 2012 and postponed 11 June 2012. Also, Remerton doesn’t play mysterious about the Haven. All that plus signs, water, and alcohol.

I will be there for about half an hour, after which I have to go video something else. Could someone else video the rest of tonight’s Remerton City Council meeting?

City Clerk Rachel Tate Here’s the agenda, which for some reason (I’m guessing City Clerk Rachel Tate not being available) is a scan instead of a text-extractable PDF. I’ve transcribed it below this time.

CITY OF REMERTON
REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 PM

Continue reading →

Public schools to be treated less favorably than state-dictated charter schools?

Do you want to pay more local taxes for state-dictated and state-run charter schools? Ellis Black (R-174) In HB 797, one of the state laws we’re being asked to ratify with the charter school referendum on the ballot in November, in addition to the magic accounting rules that would grant charter schools much more money per student than public schools, it would create a state-wide charter school board that will take away all oversight from the local school board for any charter schools the state imposes on any locality. Yet it does not provide additional state funding for the extra money per student for charter schools, and it does explicitly address assessed valuation of local taxes.

The state takes all control over local chartered schools from the local school board in section 2A(7), last paragraph:

Amy Carter (R-175) The local board shall not be responsible for the fiscal management, accounting, or oversight of the state chartered special school.

Yet the state provides no additional funding for the additional money per student for charter schools:

Jason Shaw (R-176) 2A(5) No deduction shall be made to any state funding which a local school system is otherwise authorized to receive pursuant to this chapter as a direct result or consequence of the enrollment in a state charter school of a specific student or students who reside in the geographical area of the local school system.

(6) Funding for state chartered special schools pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to appropriations by the General Assembly and such schools shall be treated consistently with all other public schools in this state, pursuant to the respective statutory funding formulas and grants.

The bill also inserts each of those paragraphs again elsewhere, in case the point wasn’t clear enough.

So where is the extra money to come from? Here’s a hint:

Continue reading →

Open Records Officer at Lowndes County Commission @ LCC 2012-09-10

Apparently the Lowndes County Commission has noticed the new provisions of the Georgia Open Records and Open Meetings laws that VLCIA’s lawyer explained to the Industrial Authority back in May, seeing these two items on the agenda for Monday morning and Tuesday evening:

5.a. Adopt Resolution Appointing an Open Records Officer
5.b. Resolution Regarding Review & Approval of Minutes of Executive Sessions

Plus infrastructure for two subdivsisions, one of them the famous Glen Laurel, several well/septic rezonings, approval of USGS Funding Agreement for HWY 122 Stream Gauge (one of the four that let us know about river flooding in Lowndes County less than a month ago), a beer license, and approval of the changes to the ULDC that were discussed in the recent Planning Commission meeting, in the public hearing the public didn’t know about. And more.

Here’s the agenda.

LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED AGENDA
WORK SESSION, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2012, 8:30 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, 5:30 p.m.
327 N. Ashley Street – 2nd Floor
Continue reading →

Change the Atomic Energy Act? How about change the Georgia Electric Territorial Act?

In reaction to the NRC denying a nuclear permit for Calvert Cliffs, some nuclear backers suggest changing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit majority foreign ownership of nuclear reactors. What will they suggest next? Asking Iran to invest in U.S. nukes?

Steve Skutnik wrote for http://theenergycollective.com 5 September 2012, A cost-free way to open up nuclear investment,

If this seems entirely backward in a world of global production and investment, that’s because it is. The current regulation is an artifact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which first authorized private ownership of nuclear facilities. (Prior to this—per the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, all nuclear technology was considered a state secret, during the short time in which the U.S. enjoyed a monopoly on the technology.)

Is there any real compelling reason for restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in nuclear facilities to exist at a time when the U.S. holding a monopoly on the technology has long since passed? Issues of safety here of course are irrelevant—the facilities would be licensed and regulated by the NRC, just as any other nuclear facility is now. About the only salient objection is the political one—i.e., the implications of a foreign entity maintaining controlling ownership in key infrastructure. (Although it’s hard to see anyone getting particularly upset about the reverse—U.S. entities owning a controlling stake in infrastructure in other nations.)

Yeah, sure, strict regulation will deal with that, just like it prevents fracking from setting drinking water on fire, or BP from poisoning the Gulf. The new NRC head is maybe well-meaning, but it’s the same NRC that gave Vogtle 1 a clean bill just before it had to shut down and the same NRC that’s ignoring cancer in Shell Bluff.

Oh, by the way, the article gets to the main point eventually:

Continue reading →

NRC rejects nuke permit for EDF in Maryland

French nuclear operator Électricité de France (EDF) was denied a license last week for the proposed Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor in Maryland, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits majority foreign ownership of nuclear plants. EDF now has 60 days to find a U.S. partner, or give up the project. Who could the possible suitors be? Hint: think southeast.

The handwriting was on the wall two years ago when Constellation Energy pulled out of the project. Jim Polson and Alan Katz wrote for Bloomberg 10 October 2010, Constellation Drops Nuclear Plant, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans,

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.

The cost of the U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’ joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement yesterday. The statement said the next step is up to EDF. Enlarge image U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Constellation’s decision may make it more likely that the U.S. utility will exercise a put option forcing EDF to buy as much as $2 billion of Constellation’s non-nuclear power plants, said Ingo Becker, head of utilities sector research at Kepler Capital Markets.

“EDF very clearly said if they exercise the put, this thing is over,” Becker said. “Constellation may have just turned around the calendar and pulled out of the new build before exercising the put, anticipating EDF’s reaction.”

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Meanwhile, Southern Company is still trying to reduce what it has to pay for its $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee.

Back in Maryland, the news got worse for the nuke last year. EDF asked for the state’s help, but didn’t get the answer it wanted. Scott Dance wrote for Baltimore Business Journal 16 December 2011, EDF: Constellation-Exelon settlement hurts Maryland nuclear industry,

Continue reading →

Energy experts making excuses for fracking

Numerous eminent current and former regulators, governors, and legislators’ best advice for how to keep fracking from polluting our aquifers and drinking water: “strict regulation”. As Gandhi reputedly said about western civilization: that would be a good idea. But in Georgia and many other places, where the regulatory agency (GA PSC) and the legislature are pretty much captured by the utilities they pretend to regulate, how will we get that “strict regulation”?

This was at a Politico event, sponsored by American Wind Power, called Energy & the Presidency.

Join POLITICO for a lunch conversation with energy experts and policy leaders Energy & the Presidency panel as they discuss current energy legislation, the energy debates facing the nation, policy options and what’s ahead in the year to come. Speakers include: ClearView Energy Partners’ Kevin Book; former Administrator of the EPA and former Director of the White House Office on Climate Change, Carol Browner; Rep. Ed Markey (Mass.); former Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) and former Gov. Bill Ritter (Colo.).

When: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm ET

This event was in North Carolina, where the late John Blackburn, Ph.D. already reported two years ago that the whole state could be powered by wind, sun, existing hydro, landfill gas, and less natural gas than is already in use, why do we need fracking at all?

Georgia has similar real renewable energy potential, plus studies by Georgia Tech and Duke indicate that Georgia doesn’t need any additional total electric power anyway, if it gets on with energy efficiency. Add solar and wind instead of natural gas, and we can retire a lot of coal plants. With no need for fracking.

I have an idea: let’s elect Public Service Commissioners and legislators who are not beholden to the utilities they will regulate!

-jsq

Where would Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get enough land for 80 MW solar generation?

Plant Branch in Georgia Where will Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get the 2,200 acres it says it needs to build 80 MW of solar generation? Well, it’s supposed to be “adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.”, so let’s look there.

Plant Branch Location Map A brochure on Plant Branch by Georgia Power (undated, but last date mentioned is 1998, so I’m guessing 1999) says:

Located on 1,900 acres on Lake Sinclair in Putnam County between Eatonton and Milledgeville, Plant Branch was the first million-plus-kilowatt electric generating station to operate on the Georgia Power system. It is named for Harllee Branch Jr., former chairman of the board of Southern Company and president of Georgia Power. Construction on the plant began in 1961, and by the summer of 1969, Coal pouring onto pile four units were in operation. The 1,539,000 kilowatts generated by Plant Branch provides enough electrical power for 342,000 households.

And now Plant Branch will be among the first to close coal-generating units. According to Melissa Stiers for GPB News 12 July 2011, Georgia Power Closing Three Plants,

Two coal fired units at Plant Branch in Milledgeville will close in 2013. That’s a result of federal regulation tightening air pollution controls. The company has said it’s too costly to upgrade those units.

Plant Branch across Lake Sinclair As we know, Georgia Power’s parent The Southern Company claimed it was incompetent to deal with the new EPA regulations even though it had already announced the Plant Branch closures (amounting to about 770 MW), and later SO announced 4,000 MW of coal plant closures.

While the various news stories keep saying Plant Branch is in Milledgeville, actually, it’s on the other side of Lake Sinclair, closer to Eatonville, Plant Branch site in Putnam County qpublic map and in Putnam County. A quick glance at the Putnam County Tax Assessor database maps shows that the land parcel containing Plant Branch is 913.87 acres, much of which isn’t actually used by the plant. And Georgia Power owns a total of more than 3,000 acres adjacent to that site. So I’m guessing the 2,200 acres figure is simply around 3,100 total Georgia Power acres minus 913 acres for the present Plant Branch site.

Estimates for land needed for a megawatt of solar power generation range Continue reading →

Company to build 90 MW solar and become a utility

What to do if you can’t interest Georgia Power in building solar? Do it yourself, and do enough so you can be a utility yourself. That’s the loophole in the 1973 Electric Territorial Act that FPL and JEA use to burn coal at Plant Scherer in Georgia and export the power to Florida. Now Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. is using the loophole for a better purpose: building almost twice as much solar generation as Georgia Power’s meager 50 MW.

Georgia Solar Utilities Dave Williams wrote for the Atlanta Business Chronicle yesterday New Georgia utility pitches solar plant: A new utility is planning to build a $320 million solar power plant on 2,200 acres adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.

Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. initially approached Georgia Power, a unit of Southern Co. (NYSE: SO), with a proposal to build the plant and sell it to Georgia Power through a power-purchasing agreement.

Georgia Power is retiring two coal-fired units at Plant Branch, part of a move to reduce the Atlanta-based utility’s reliance on coal.

But when Georgia Power officials declined to take part in the project last May, Georgia Solar Utilities executives decided to build the plant on their own and operate it as a new utility independent of Georgia Power.

Once cost prohibitive, solar energy has become competitive with fossil fuels because of the rising costs of coal and tighter government regulation of coal emissions, said Robert Green, founder of Georgia Solar Utilities.

“When you don’t have to buy coal or worry about environmental hangovers, it overwhelms the costs of fossil fuels, Green said Thursday after presenting the proposal to the Georgia Public Service Commission’s Energy Committee.

Some say the PSC can’t approve such a utility because of that 1973 law. I suspect that if they don’t approve this proposal, the next one will be even harder to turn down, and the next one, as they become even more competitive.

How competitive?

Continue reading →

Industrial Authority has to be congratulated —Michael G. Noll

Received yesterday on WCTV on biomass site VLCIA v. Sterling Planet. -jsq

Wiregrass Activists for Clean Energy (WACE) have made it clear from the start that biomass plants have a number of issues: 1) biomass plants bear significant health risks; 2) biomass plants waste enormous amounts of water; 3) biomass plants are risky investments in an increasingly competitive energy sector; and 4) biomass plants contribute to global warming.

In the light of rising global temperatures, worsening drought conditions, and dropping prices for solar panels, an increasing number of people are understanding these simple truths.

The Industrial Authority has to be congratulated for the courage to admit that energy from biomass plants is indeed more expensive than energy from solar plants, and we have not even figured in the costs associated with the consequences of air pollution coming from biomass plants.

(For more information on biomass plants, here a testimony I recently gave: http://www.bredl.org/pdf3/120828_WACE-Comments-Docket_NO-E-100_SUB113.pdf)

Although this point has already been made earlier, note again that solar plants are much better alternatives, economically and environmentally: they do not pollute our air, they do not need any water, and a huge spill of solar energy is simply called a sunny day … of which we have plenty here in the south.

-Michael G. Noll

-jsq