Climate Climate & Energy

What Californians know that Shellenberger & Nordhaus don’t

"The kind of technological revolution called for by energy experts typically does not occur via regulatory fiat" claim Shellenberger & Nordhaus. Actually, that is typically the only way it occurs. I defy anyone to name a country that has successfully adopted alternative fuels for vehicles without employing some kind of regulatory mandate.

This is also true in the electricity sector. Consider that in terms of electricity consumption, the average Californian generates under one third the carbon dioxide emissions of the average American while paying the same annual bill.

Did California accomplish this by technology breakthroughs that S&N mistakenly say we need? Not at all. They did it by accelerating the deployment of boring old technology -- insulation, efficient lightbulbs, refrigerators, and other appliances, light-colored roofs, and so on -- through tough building codes and intelligent utility regulations, especially ones that put efficiency on an equal footing with new generation. The result: From 1976 to 2005, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in hi-tech, fast-growing California.

S&N think we must have massive $30 billion-a-year government programs and clean technologies. One of their central arguments is that "big, long-term investments in new technologies are made only by governments." This is perhaps half true, but 100 percent irrelevant. What we need is big, long-term investment in existing technologies -- and that is made primarily by the private sector stimulated by government regulations.

Why isn't government spending more important? Let me relate an eye-opening story from my time in government.

Climate campaigners could have a shot at winning the Nobel Peace Prize

Word around the campfire is that climate campaigners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier may be on the short list of nominees with a shot at landing this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. The prestigious award — to be announced Oct. 12 — has traditionally been awarded to human-rights activists and peace advocates (except for that whole […]

New energy proposal in California

California -- already a leader in intelligent utility regulations -- is taking aggressive steps to stay the leader. The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) made the following remarkable proposal last month:

• All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020
• All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030

In addition, the PUC established "a new system of incentives and penalties to drive investor-owned utilities above and beyond California's aggressive energy savings goals." Under this framework:

Earnings to shareholders accrue only when a utility produces positive net benefits (savings minus costs) for ratepayers. The shareholder "reward" side of the incentive mechanism is balanced by the risk of financial penalties for substandard performance in achieving the PUC's per-kilowatt, kilowatt-hour, and therm savings goals.

Kudos to the PUC for its aggressive strategy, which "puts energy efficiency on an equal footing with utility generation," as Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon put it. "It will align utility corporate culture with California's environmental values."

Even though utility regulations seem mundane, they are a core climate strategy, so here are some more details of the PUC's ground-breaking decision:

Notable quotable

“At the risk of oversimplifying, our current energy policy in the United States involves shooting bearded people. It’s not hard to imagine better ideas coming out of a reality TV show.” — Scott Adams (thanks Kate!)

Regulatory reform of utilities could lessen the need for new power plants

Last week, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) announced that eight utilities "are committed to seeking regulatory reforms and approvals to increase their investment in energy efficiency by $500 million annually to about $1.5 billion annually."

The utilities -- Con Edison, Duke Energy, Edison International, Great Plains Energy, Pepco Holdings, PNM Resources, Sierra Pacific Resources, and Xcel Energy -- represent nearly 20 million customers. The extra efficiency effort would "reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 30 million tons" and "avoid the need for 50 500-megawatt peaking power plants."

What regulatory reform? Our former President offered "to try to explain it to you in my basic English" which I reprint here:

How do you solve a problem like Maria China?

It occurs to me that my response to Shellenberger & Nordhaus failed to address what they call the "elephant in the environmental room": China. They say that environmentalists ignore the subject and corporatists obsess over it for the same reason — it illustrates the futility of domestic carbon regulations (in isolation). China, they say, is […]

Congress to move ahead on climate legislation, Dems to send delegation to U.N. climate talks

Congressional leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have said they plan to push ahead in their attempts to pass cap-and-trade-type climate legislation, despite the Bush administration’s renewed call to reduce emissions through voluntary technology partnerships instead. On Wednesday, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) released a […]

Techno-obsession

Renewables still represent only a tiny fraction of our electricity generation. Everyone seems to assume, without much argument, that the reason for this is technological. Why?

The Heartland Institute accidently steals seventh grader’s paper

I got a weird mailing yesterday from The Heartland Institute: a little pamphlet titled "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Results of an international survey of climate scientists."

Amazingly, there is a price list on the inside cover; this little gem could be yours for only $5.95. I looked all over the Institute's website but couldn't find the darn thing, until finally I thought to look under "Books," and lo and behold -- the 5" x 8", 23-page pamphlet was listed there.

I'd say one for everyone in your family ... and you could probably spring for one for everyone at work. Heck, you might just get up into discount territory (101 copies or more for $2.95 each)!

You could teach an entire class in propaganda with this jewel as your only example -- a master class in careful statements designed to strongly suggest without ever quite making a clear statement.

The Solar Power Conference revealed no breakthrough solar tech — and that’s a good thing

The following is a guest essay by Jim Raras, Jr., COO of Inpower Systems. —– Every year the biggest players in the solar industry convene at the Solar Power Conference in Long Beach, Calif., to discuss the latest advancements in solar technology. This year, one of the most notable facets of the meetings was what […]