Wisconsin

E&E: Utilities seek larger part in charging station rollout

It’s unsurprising that electric utilities stand to benefit from the sale of plug-in vehicles, providing a bump — even a small one — for flat-lining sales.

Utilities throughout the country that are looking for authority to spend millions of dollars building out charging networks say their customers will benefit, too — even those who don’t own EVs.

Just in the past six months, the state of Washington passed legislation allowing utilities to put EV charging infrastructure in their rate base. In California, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison are proposing huge investments in EV charging infrastructure (ClimateWire, Feb. 10). In the Southeast, Southern Co.’s Georgia Power subsidiary is spending $12 million on a pilot program to install as many as 50 public EV charging stations by the end of 2016 (EnergyWire, March 5).

The proposals are surfacing in the Midwest, too. In Illinois, Commonwealth Edison is lobbying for a bill that would allow it to build 5,000 charging stations. And Kansas City Power & Light is asking utility regulators in Missouri and Kansas to recover costs for a 1,000-station EV charging network (EnergyWire, Jan. 28).

The proposals follow the release of a white paper by the Edison Electric Institute a year ago, calling electrification of the transportation sector essential to the long-term health of the industry.

While the Kansas City area has relatively few plug-in vehicles on the road today, KCP&L’s $20 million Clean Charge Network proposal is being closely watched by the industry as an important test case.

The network, to be completed this summer, is being developed with partners ChargePoint and Nissan Motor Co. It would support as many as 10,000 EVs, and users would be allowed to charge their cars at no cost for the first two years.

According to filings with the Missouri Public Service Commission, the network buildout would initially cost typical residential customers about 15 cents a month. Despite the modest price tag, the plan has gotten a chilly reception from consumer groups and the PSC staff, which urged regulators to reject the proposal and leave EV charging an unregulated business.

Chuck Caisley, a utility spokesman, said KCP&L had to file the formal request as part of an electric rate case to put the issue in front of regulators. In states like Missouri, assets must be “used and useful” before utilities can seek cost recovery.

But the utility said it also wants to engage in broader policy discussions, a reason why it sought to initiate work groups in Missouri and Kansas.

“We understood this would certainly be a case of first impression in Missouri,” Caisley said. “We were aware that there were going to be some policy questions.”

Parallels to rooftop solar

Among those policy questions: Should all of the utility’s customers be forced to subsidize investment in infrastructure that will directly benefit the few who own plug-in cars?

It’s a familiar question that is also being asked about compensation rates for customers with rooftop solar energy systems — a separate debate that’s playing out at utility commissions and legislatures across the nation.

And according to KCP&L, the answer is yes, all utility customers will benefit.

Caisley said the utility analyzed the issue in depth and found “compelling reasons” why it should be able to recover costs for its EV charging network from ratepayers.

At its core, the plan addresses the biggest challenge faced by the utility industry and — by extension — its customers. Electricity sales growth is flat. But costs, including those required to meet more stringent environmental regulations, are increasing.

Helping stimulate adoption of plug-in vehicles helps address the disconnect by enabling use of existing power plants that sit idle much of the time, Caisley said. That means an increase in off-peak kilowatt-hour sales, helping the utility recover costs. And spreading fixed-cost recovery over more units of energy means lower kilowatt-hour rates.

There will also be environmental benefits as plug-in vehicles replace gasoline-powered cars.

According to KCP&L, the benefits from the Clean Charge Network are significant — much greater than the systemwide benefits from the almost $100 million it will pay out in solar rebates for Missouri customers.

Caisley said the utility is supportive of distributed generation and sees a future for rooftop solar in its service area.

At the same time, the policy decision made by regulators regarding the EV charging network could have consequences for future decisions regarding customer-owned solar.

“If the commission denies recovery for this, I think it unwittingly gives us the precedent to completely stop solar in our jurisdiction,” he said.

Finding utilities’ role in the market

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Nor does everyone agree that utilities should be tasked with building EV charging networks at ratepayer expense.

Arun Banskota, president of NRG Energy Inc.’s eVgo subsidiary, which operates the largest public fast-charging network in the country, said the market should be allowed to develop on its own. Letting utilities spend millions of dollars of ratepayer funds to build out charging networks would put competitors like NRG at a disadvantage.

In general, “it’s not the right thing to do,” Banskota said in an interview. But, he added, “I would not say that utilities should be not be involved at all.”

There is a case for EV charging stations subsidized by utility customers or taxpayers in instances when the market isn’t functioning on its own. That could include underserved communities, such as low-income neighborhoods, where there’s little EV penetration and third-party developers and there’s not a financial case for investment, he said.

Banskota said a better role for utilities involves extending the existing distribution grid to enable EV charging infrastructure.

Curt Volkmann, senior clean energy finance specialist for the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center, agrees.

Volkmann said the “made-ready” approach to utility involvement in EV infrastructure being proposed by Southern California Edison is preferable to a network owned and operated by a large utility, such as the one proposed by ComEd in Illinois.

The California utility is asking regulators for permission to develop the infrastructure for up to 30,000 EV charging stations — distribution lines, transformers and other infrastructure. It will then be up to third parties to own the charging stations.

“It significantly reduces cost for a third party to put in a charger and let the utility stick to its core business,” Volkmann said.

Dan Welch, a transportation fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said policies regarding who can own EV charging infrastructure are rapidly evolving on a state-by-state basis. And what’s acceptable in one state might not be well-received in another.

“I think the markets need to be able to find their own equilibrium,” he said.

Exactly what role utilities play will differ, but companies that operate the distribution grid will undoubtedly be involved at some level.

“Utilities are familiar, they’re knowledgable, they’re trusted by governments, PUCs and consumers,” he said.

Caisley said utilities, with their century of experience building and running the grid, are best-suited to develop EV charging networks.

“This is electrical infrastructure,” he said. “And we can do it cheaper. By doing it in big tranches, we can bring down the cost.”

In fact, the utility says in regulatory filings that it’s not just the best company for the job, it’s the only company.

KCP&L says it’s obligated under Missouri law to build infrastructure to serve electric load in its service territory, whether demand is coming from a home, a commercial building or an automobile.

The law also prohibits the resale of retail electricity in KCP&L’s service area, raising questions about the ability of a third party to charge EV owners for plugging in.

“But we don’t even have to get to that question,” Caisley said. “Why not let the utility do what it does best?”

Detroit Free Press: S.S. Badger cleared for sailing by EPA

Two years after striking a deal to keep the last coal-fired ship on the Great Lakes operating, federal regulators this week declared the S.S. Badger in compliance with an order that it stop dumping coal ash into Lake Michigan, clearing it for a new sailing season beginning today.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said an inspection of the Badger — a historic carferry which makes about 450 trips between Ludington and Manitowoc, Wis., during a 6-month season each year — showed it had “taken all the steps necessary” to stop discharging coal ash into the lake.

“Victory!” said a statement today by the Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center, which had pressured the government to address the hundreds of tons of coal ash the 63-year-old Badger was dumping into Lake Michigan each year. “All bad things should come to an end, and this water pollution is. … Step-by-step, our Great Lakes are getting cleaner.”

Keep Reading

Victory for Great Lakes Protection: SS Badger Car Ferry Forced to Stop Dumping Toxic Coal Ash into Lake Michigan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 15, 2015

 

Contact:

Judith Nemes

JNemes@ELPC.org

312-795-3706

 

Victory for Great Lakes Protection:  SS Badger Car Ferry Forced to Stop Dumping Toxic Coal Ash into Lake Michigan

Environmental Law & Policy Center and Partners Declare Victory

 

Chicago – The Environmental Law & Policy Center and partners declared a victory for cleaning up the Great Lakes following the successful campaign and federal court consent decree to require the SS Badger car ferry to stop dumping 1,000,000 pounds of toxic coal ash into Lake Michigan each summer. Today, the SS Badger car ferry is scheduled to go across Lake Michigan from Manitowoc, WI, to Ludington, MI, with a new coal ash containment system in place. Step-by-step, our Great Lakes are getting cleaner.

 

“This is a victory for a cleaner Lake Michigan and a step in the right direction for reducing toxic pollution of the Great Lakes,” said Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “It reaffirms the principle that no business, including the SS Badger, should be permitted to use the Great Lakes as a dumping ground for pollution.”

 

This victory follows a strong campaign led by the Environmental Law & Policy Center with U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and partners at the Alliance for the Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and others.

“All bad things should come to an end, and this water pollution is,” said Learner. “This summer, the SS Badger will not be dumping nearly 1,000,000 pounds of toxic coal ash into Lake Michigan.”

The 60-year-old SS Badger is the last coal-burning ship on the Great Lakes. For too many years, the resulting coal ash – containing toxic materials – was moved from the ship’s boilers to an on-board retention area, where it was mixed with Lake Michigan water and then discharged into the lake as toxic slurry. Public pressure and the SS Badger’s continued pollution led to an action by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that resulted in a binding consent decree filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Following the public campaign and consent decree, SS Badger operators installed new digital combustion controls that enable the ship to run more efficiently, burning about 15% less coal on its trips from Manitowoc, WI, to Ludington, MI. The new system will now move the coal ash along a conveyor belt between the ship’s boilers and four containment bins. Those bins will later be moved to an appropriate land-based site, possibly for re-sale as a cement filler. This kind of “encapsulated reuse” is one of the better scenarios for handling toxic coal ash.

“While the SS Badger still burns coal and emits it into the air, stopping the dumping of coal ash into Lake Michigan is a very good step in the right direction,” Learner added.

####

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victory! No More SS Badger Toxic Coal Ash Dumping into Lake Michigan

Victory!  Today, the SS Badger car ferry is scheduled to go across Lake Michigan from Manitowoc, WI to Ludington, MI with a new coal ash containment system in place. All bad things should come to an end, and this water pollution is.  This summer, the SS Badger will not be dumping nearly 1,000,000 pounds of toxic coal ash into Lake Michigan.  Step-by-step, our Great Lakes are getting cleaner.

This is a significant step in the right direction for reducing toxic pollution of the Great Lakes. It reaffirms the principle that no business should be permitted to use the Great Lakes as a dumping ground for toxics.

This victory follows a strong campaign led by the Environmental Law & Policy Center with U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and our good partner colleagues at the Alliance for the Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and others.

The 60-year-old SS Badger is the last coal-burning ship on the Great Lakes. For too many years, the resulting coal ash – containing toxic materials – has been discharged into Lake Michigan. Pressure from ELPC, our allies and the public led to an action by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that resulted in a binding consent decree requiring SS Badger operators to capture and then lawfully dispose of the toxic coal ash without dumping any into Lake Michigan.

Following the consent decree, SS Badger operators installed new digital combustion controls that enable the ship to run more efficiently, burning about 15% less coal on its trips from Manitowoc, WI to Ludington, MI.  They also installed a new retention system that moves the coal ash along a conveyor belt between the ship’s boilers and four containment bins. Those bins are later moved to an appropriate land-based site, possibly for re-sale as a cement filler. This kind of “encapsulated reuse” is one of the better scenarios for handling toxic coal ash.

This has been tough sledding. Working together, we have brought to an end the SS Badger’s dumping of toxic coal ash into Lake Michigan.

Inside Climate News: Resistance to Pipeline Bigger than Keystone Thwarts Enbridge in Wisconsin

Pipeline giant Enbridge, Inc., is in a standoff with a Wisconsin zoning committee over the company’s plans to vastly increase the amount of tar sands oil pumped through one of its lines.

In an unusual move, the Dane County Zoning and Land Regulation Committee slapped additional insurance requirements on Enbridge before letting it build a new high-capacity pump station along its Line 61.

Boosting pumping power is critical to Enbridge’s plan to triple the capacity of the six-year-old pipeline that runs from northern Wisconsin to refineries near Chicago. Adding the insurance is one of few precautions the county can take to prepare for a potential spill on the expanded line.

At its new capacity Line 61 would carry 1.2 million barrels of heavy crude oil from Canada’s tar sands region a day—more oil than the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which has inspired fierce public opposition and debate for seven years.

Enbridge officials say there’s no need for additional insurance––and that the county committee overstepped its bounds and crossed into the jurisdiction of federal pipeline regulators by trying to regulate safety operations. The company has asked the county’s 37-member board of supervisors to overturn the zoning board’s requirement. A June 4 hearing has been set.

“Enbridge’s current insurance coverage and our existing insurance policies, as well as Enbridge’s overall financial position, are more than sufficient to address the unlikely event of any release on the pipeline system in Dane County,” said Enbridge spokesman Michael Barnes.

This flexing of muscle by Dane County is another example of the growing trend of local governments standing up to pipeline companies.

For more than a year the York County, Neb. Board of County Commissioners considered imposing zoning conditions on underground pipelines that would have affected the Keystone XL. Pipeline company ET Rover faced such heavy opposition last year from a few county governments in Michigan that it decided to reroute a gas pipeline to through less densely populated counties.

Enbridge encountered feisty resistance from local governments during its work to replace the aging pipeline 6B, which burst and sent oil into the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Mich., in 2010.

The cleanup of the Kalamazoo was unusually difficult because the pipeline was carrying tar sands oil, which sinks in water. The effort has cost the company more than $1 billion, exceeding the cap on Enbridge’s liability insurance by nearly $600 million and leaving the company to make up the difference.

The lessons learned from the Michigan spill persuaded Dane County zoning officials to impose the insurance requirement, according to Patrick Miles, one of the group’s five members.

Although there are no nearby rivers or streams that could be jeopardized by a spill in Dane County, Miles said there are wetlands, farms and open space that would be in danger if Line 61 ruptured. The Democrat-leaning county is home to the University of Wisconsin-Madison and more than a half a million people.

“We’ve seen the catastrophic consequences of a spill,” Miles said. “Because we are tasked with looking out for the public interest and public safety, we wanted to make sure that there was as much protection in place as possible.”

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, said the county was careful not to impose conditions on the pipeline itself, which would have infringed on federal regulations. “Dane County isn’t seeking to regulate pipeline integrity or shut off valves. Dane County is seeking to…make sure there are sufficient insurance funds to clean up if there is an oil spill.”

Keep Reading

Howard Talks Midwest Oil Pipelines on EETV

ELPC’s Howard Learner joined EETV’s Monica Trauzzi to discuss oil pipelines in the Midwest. The discussion focused on a recent vote in Dane County, WI to require Enbridge to take out an insurance policy to protect the community against costs from potential spill. Watch the video at http://www.eenews.net/video_assets/mp4/2015/04/video_asset_5160.mp4.

 

WI State Journal: Opponents continue attack as major Wisconsin utility merger moves forward

Opponents continue to fight plans by Wisconsin Energy Corp., Milwaukee, to buy Integrys Energy Group, Chicago, even though the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the $9.1 billion deal this week.

The Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board called it “a bad idea,” in comments submitted Monday.

“WEC has shown how the proposed transaction will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits for shareholders, lawyers, bankers, and customers in other states while providing nothing for Wisconsin customers but increased risks,” CUB wrote.

If approved, the huge utility will serve more than 4.3 million customers.

Wisconsin Energy subsidiary, We Energies, provides electricity to residents as far west as the Deerfield and Marshall areas in Dane County. Integrys includes Green Bay utility company Wisconsin Public Service.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center of Chicago said the merged company — to be called WEC Energy Group — will have too much control over American Transmission Corp., which owns and operates high-voltage transmission lines in Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

The center said WEC should have no more than 34 percent ownership or voting rights in ATC.

Wisconsin Energy spokesman Brian Manthey said FERC’s decision “represents one more positive and important step in the process of finalizing our acquisition.”

Regulators in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan are expected to act on the proposal by early July. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission could cast its vote later this month, Manthey said.

WBEZ: Great Lakes Pollution Symposium

Last August a toxic algae bloom in Lake Erie temporarily shut down Toledo, Ohio’s water source leaving questions about the long term viability of that source of water for about 400,000 people. This was fueled not only by warm temperatures but nutrient rich runoff. Nutrient pollution has recently been connected to adverse impacts for ecological and economic systems across the Great Lakes Region. A two-day symposium in Chicago is examining the current state of nutrient management in the Great Lakes, what policies are working and how stakeholders can work towards solutions. Aquatic Ecologist Nancy Tuchman and Gail Hesse of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission sift through some of these issues.

Toledo Blade: EPA official notes planes scan for farm violations

CHICAGO — Note to corporate agriculture: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has inspectors in the sky looking down at you.

Susan Hedman, the EPA’s Midwest regional administrator, said Thursday night at a Great Lakes conference her agency has had inspectors in small planes the last three years looking for manure-management violations by large livestock operations known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Ms. Hedman declined to provide specifics, saying the occasional flyovers are an enforcement tool. But she said the federal EPA has found it useful in taking legal action against some CAFOs with large manure releases, and sees expansion potential. The surveillance is not spying: The agriculture industry is notified in advance when the agency will be flying in the Great Lakes region, she said.

“That’s a very good use of inspector time,” Ms. Hedman told The Blade following her presentation.

The event, a two-day Great Lakes symposium sponsored by Chicago’s Environmental Law & Policy Center, drew a large Ohio contingent and put last August’s algae-induced Toledo water crisis at center stage. It concluded Friday.

Keep Reading

Utility Drive Op-Ed: A view from Wisconsin on fixed charges and utility-solar troubles

The following is an opinion piece written by Tyler Huebner and Brad Klein. Huebner is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a renewable advocacy organization in the state. Klein is a senior attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, an environmental advocacy organization in the Midwest.

Last fall, we participated first-hand in three Wisconsin utility proposals relating to fixed charges and distributed generation.

More recently, we have followed the recent op-eds in Utility Dive from Dr. H. Edwin Overcast and Dr. Ashley C. Brown on fixed charges and net metering. One thing stood out to us in their editorials: Lots of words, but almost no actual data!

To remedy this — as our organizations did in last year’s rate cases for these Wisconsin utilities — we will provide some numbers.

Digging into the data

In Wisconsin, all three utilities argued that customers with solar panels are not paying their fair share of the utilities’ fixed costs, and therefore every single customer should see their monthly connection fee go up from $9-$10 per month to $16-$25 per month.

Raising the monthly connection fee hurts low-using energy customers, who, asthe National Consumer Law Center found, are often low-income, minorities, fixed-income, apartment dwellers, and senior citizens.

Let’s put Wisconsin’s level of solar adoption in perspective compared with the dramatic fixed charge increases requested.

Wisconsin Public Service

Wisconsin Public Service (WPS), based in Green Bay, serves approximately 445,000 electric customers. Of these, only 340 have installed distributed generation in the past 10 years — 0.08% of their customer base.

Further, even WPS conceded that the majority of those customers — 65%, or 221 homeowners — were fully paying their fixed costs under the utility’s way of counting. That is because, although they have solar, these 221 customers’ photovoltaic systems don’t provide all their electricity usage.

The total unrecovered revenue requirement — what the utility thinks it should earn but doesn’t because solar customers invest in solar on their roofs — amounts to only $21,000 for the entire year. That is approximately 0.002% of the company’s total 2013 monopoly revenue.

This is how WPS solves its “problem” — it seeks to shift $6.5 million from variable rates into unavoidable monthly fees for each customer, in order to offset a theoretical shortfall of only $21,000 caused by 119 customers who installed solar equipment largely at their own expense.

We Energies

Next up: We Energies, based in Milwaukee, which serves approximately 1.1 million electric customers. It requested an increase in monthly connection fees from $9.13 to $16, which will shift more than $7 million a year from usage-based rates to guaranteed fixed monthly fees. We Energies also proposed to apply additional charges on residential and small business customers with their own distributed generation systems, which would amount to about $20 per month for a 5 kW solar PV system — $3.80 per kW per month, to be specific.

About 450 We Energies customers have distributed generation and use net metering, or just 0.04% of their customers. The increased fixed charges and solar charges on those 450 customers will amount to about $117,000, or about 0.004% of the utility’s revenues.

Madison Gas & Electric

Finally, Madison Gas & Electric used similar arguments to request monthly fixed fees rise from about $10 to $19 (after backing off plans to raise them significantly higher in future years). Just 0.14% of their customers use net metering.

‘Swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon’

Collectively, only 6 out of every 10,000 customers for these utilities have distributed generation. “Swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon” is the type of analogy that should be used when considering these Wisconsin proposals, and the result is a “cure” that’s much worse than the disease.

Especially when the disease hasn’t even been proven to exist. The only analysis in the record concerning Wisconsin-based costs and benefits of distributed generation was gathered through a data request: a 2009 study commissioned by We Energies and conducted by Clean Power Research, which concluded that solar PV is worth about 15 cents per kWh at a levelized value for 30 years (see page ES-3). Since We Energies’ electric rates were about 13.9 cents per kWh in 2014, it turns out that solar customers may very well be subsidizing all other We Energies ratepayers.

Unfortunately, none of the utilities offered any new analysis of the benefits of distributed generation in these proceedings. Nearly every intervening organization suggested that the Wisconsin Commission conduct real studies looking at the costs and benefits of net metering and distributed generation as has been done in Vermont (see section 3.3.3), Nevada, Mississippi, Minnesota, and other states. The Utah Commission told Rocky Mountain Power to beef up their analysis, too (see page 66). But in Wisconsin, that suggestion was denied.

Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission has been approving the utilities’ distributed generation restrictions for years despite the repeated lack of evidence. RENEW Wisconsin, the local renewable energy advocacy organization, has been forced to take these unsupported decisions to court. Luckily, it has prevailed on three of the four counts brought the past two years, with the judge remanding decisions back to the Commission for further fact-finding. Along with The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC), RENEW hasappealed the 2014 We Energies solar charge decision as well.

Does net metering really hurt the poor?

In an op-ed in Utility Dive, Dr. Brown states that one of his primary concerns with net metering is that it may hurt the poor.

In his testimony here in Wisconsin, he provided absolutely no state-specific data to support his theory that solar owners, who make up just 4 of every 10,000 We Energies customers, are causing undue hardship on the poor. Further, he offered no alternative to the higher fixed customer charges which unquestionably do hurt many of We Energies’ low-income ratepayers.

The result of the Wisconsin rate cases is that a typical apartment-dwelling customer served by these utilities will pay $60-$75 more each year for electricity. Even granting the utilities’ extreme position that excess solar is worth nothing more than the cheapest electron you can buy on the market — contradicted by We Energies’ own 2009 study mentioned above — those same customers paid no more than a dime a year extra due to current solar customers.

As the recent Washington Post article exposed, this solar battle is not really about customer fairness, it is about protecting utilities from competition, plain and simple. (Note that Dr. Brown’s Harvard Electricity Policy Group issupported heavily by the electric utility industry.)

Solar customers and the future of the utility industry

There is no doubt that the electricity industry is entering a new phase in Wisconsin and other states due to declining sales and the ever-increasing affordability of solar panels for customers. Thus far however, the small number of solar customers here in Wisconsin does not require wholesale changes to how we set rates. We have plenty of time to get these policies right and many, if not almost all, other states are in the same boat.

Our advice from the trenches in Wisconsin to utilities and Commissions in other states: Follow the lead of Vermont, Nevada, Mississippi, Minnesota, Maine, Utah, and other states on this issue — not Wisconsin’s 2014 decisions. Do the studies. Get the data. Hash out the details.

The best way to address this industry transition is with solid analysis of the utility’s actual situation, open discussion, and a long-run, forward-looking view. Not by ramming through “back to the past” electric rate policies against broad objections from citizens and that undisputedly harm low-use and fixed-income customers who can least afford the higher bills they now have to pay.

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now