Still haven't seen KIUC’s Energy Management Plan (EMP), just adopted despite opposition by Ben Sullivan in his first KIUC Director’s meeting. (Yeah! Ahh!).
Sadly, the BAU boyz (business-as-usual) 'freight train' had a full head of steam before Sullivan came aboard.
Worse, KIUC's plans could lock us into energy choices that move us in the wrong direction.
Sure, the Strategic Plan talks about transitioning to 'green' energy, yet KIUC’s first major expenditure will be for another fossil fuel plant. Yikes!
The EMP decision coincided with Board approval of the Long Range Engineering Plan, which follows from the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that they approved last December. (BTW, neither this IRP link nor any of these documents appears on KIUC's website...WTF!)
At core, the BAU view is that things will return to "normal" and past trends will continue. We know this is false, yet the KIUC Board endorsed this view as if its "certainty" was superior to the "uncertainty" of 'green' energy options.
The sustainability view, on the other hand, is that our energy picture is changing rapidly and will inevitably drive new trends.
This line from the consultant's IRP presentation says it all:
"High risk projects cannot prudently be considered for a vital near-term addition."
...which raises the question of how needs and risks are assessed.
The BAU preference is certainty, while our un-sustainability virtually guarantees uncertainty.
More worse, the Board was cowed into this rush to add new generating capacity on the basis of a deeply flawed consultant's Load Forecast.
Makes me think the Board could have used an independent assessment of the numbers provided by the consultant...mebbe by an economist (heh).
...(for my assessment of the Load Forecast, see Part II)