electricity

Florida utility’s green energy program died a predictable death

The sad fate of Florida Power & Light’s green energy program should be instructive. Of course the program had to spend a ton of money on marketing — it was asking ratepayers for charitable donations to a cause most of them weren’t familiar with and didn’t care much about. Given that most ratepayers weren’t eager […]

Five Gore steps to carbon-free electricity and electrified transportation

On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to comment about Al Gore's next step on Earthbeat Radio, a syndicated, weekly, hour-long environmental program, and speaking with me was long-time anti-nuclear, environmental, and political activist Harvey Wasserman, author of "Solartopia! Our Green Powered Earth." The show is co-hosted by Daphne Wysham, global environmental activist from the Institute for Policy Studies. Our segment [mp3] is a little more than halfway through.

Our conversation got me to thinking about what a set of five "Gore" steps might look like. Gore has put forth the first and second steps, so now we can pitch in and propose a few more. Here are mine:

Energy efficiency, part 4

California and its utilities have achieved remarkably consistent energy efficiency gains for three decades. How did they do it?

In part, a smart California Energy Commission has promoted strong building standards and the aggressive deployment of energy-efficient technologies and strategies -- and has done so with support of both Democratic and Republican leadership over three decades. I talked to California energy commissioner Art Rosenfeld -- a former DOE colleague and the godfather of energy efficiency -- about what the state does, and here are some interesting details he offered, as discussed in "Why we never need to build another polluting power plant":

The cheaper the power, the more we use

I'm going to geek out for a second. But first, check out this graph:

I suppose there are two lessons:

1. Price and consumption are not perfectly correlated. Clearly there are many non-price factors affecting electricity consumption. (These include, at least, the local climate, building size and type, and local energy efficiency policies.) But still ...
2. Price definitely affects use, and the fit gets better as you move up the price axis. The more expensive electricity is, the less likely consumers are to be profligate.

In energy circles it's sometimes alleged that consumers are price insensitive or economically irrational about consumption. There's some truth to that, but it's only a partial truth.

These charts help demonstrate why carbon pricing can be effective. Putting a price on carbon -- or a price on energy -- acts to reduce consumption. Price is not the only factor and it may not even be the biggest factor, but it does appear to matter. And it appears to matter more above about 10 or 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

This hooks into a larger debate in the Western Climate Initiative.

Four encouraging signs from Big Oil’s backyard

After Nerdi Gras (Netroots Nation), I took a couple days off to dry-out and trotted over to Houston to visit my parents. It came as no surprise that Houston is booming due to the skyrocketing price of oil. But I also learned a few surprising things that gave me hope that brighter days are ahead for the rest of us well. Because if Houston can get it right, who can't?

Energy efficiency, part 3

This series is based in part on this Salon article: "Why we never need to build another polluting power plant."

Energy efficiency is by far the biggest low-carbon resource available, and it is as limitless as wind, PV, and solar baseload. It is also the cheapest power you can buy, by far.

California has cut annual peak demand by 12 GW -- and total demand by about 40,000 GWh -- over the past three decades. The cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2-3 cents per kW -- which is about one-fifth the cost of electricity generated from new nuclear, coal, and natural gas-fired plants. And, of course, energy efficiency does not require new power lines and does not generate greenhouse gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste.

There’s only one way to get big near-term carbon reductions

If we want to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm around 2050 -- the minimum necessary, which still might carry major impacts -- we need to achieve at least 2 percent average annual net reductions in emissions, globally, starting in two years. Not only do the near term emissions reductions matter the most, but it will get easier, not harder, as we go along. Solar PV and solar thermal are likely to become cheaper than new coal plants in a decade or so. They will also probably become cheaper than wind around the same time, and together these resources will make it possible to eliminate about three quarters of fossil generation.

It may be possible to exceed the 2 percent rate. But the only way to know that is to achieve 2 percent first. Nothing weaker than 2 percent is particularly worth talking about, and anything stronger is very hard to achieve. Also, any strategy to reduce CO2 emissions must address ongoing growth. While there are many reasons to believe the rate of new growth will change, as it has done historically, it is at present about 1.5 percent per year. Thus a 2 percent annual net reduction in today's world means a 3.5 percent gross reduction.

This series discusses the implications of this goal for the U.S. electric industry.

Busted: Majority of emissions cuts can come from public spending

A common rap by environmental economists is "any means of cutting emissions raises prices." Though it is used in defense of a valid point (in the long run we will have to institute either a carbon tax or a permit system), it is simply not true.

The vast majority of emissions cuts can come via public spending that won't raise prices. We can subsidize efficiency improvements to buildings, fund a conversion of most long-haul trucking to rail, and in the long run electrify all transit and decarbonize electricity generation.

But doesn't the money for these subsidies have to come from somewhere? Yup, but a lot these are areas where the private (as opposed to social) gains exceed the subsidy -- meaning even if the people receiving the subsidy end up paying for most of it from taxes, they come out ahead. However, there is no reason the people receiving the subsidies have to pay for most of them. Most of our military budget is devoted to aggression rather than protecting us. We have had enormous tax cuts for the rich from Jimmy Carter forward. We have wasteful existing subsidies for fossil fuel and various unsustainable practices. There is an old liberal-mocking slogan I'd like to turn around and adapt: "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind that tree."

Electric Boogie

12,133 — per capita annual electricity consumption (kilowatt-hours) in the U.S. in 1997 1,381 — per capita annual electricity consumption (kilowatt-hours) in the rest of the world in 1997 21.5 — percentage increase in U.S. electricity consumption from 1990 to 1999 43 — percentage decrease in utility funding for energy efficiency from 1993 to 1998 […]