Firedoglake is pleased to welcome author David Goldstein and host John Wilson, two of the country’s leading energy efficiency experts. You’ll find introductions and related links and information in this preview post.
I’m pleased to introduce my friend David Goldstein’s invaluable and timely book, Saving Energy, Growing Jobs. All the policy issues David discusses are now confronting the country and the next Administration.
Climate change is going to be the public health challenge of the 21st century, and energy efficiency is going to be the number one solution. California has been a test bed for efficiency policies for the last 30 years, and David’s book captures the lessons he learned. It’s not a wonky discussion about policies–it’s about the political atmosphere that clouds clear thinking and blocks good public policy. To quote the book’s introduction:
"No one supports pollution as public policy. No matter what one’s political philosophy or business goals, clean air, safe drinking water, foods free from poisons, and the protection of unspoiled environments are seemingly universal goals.
Then why is environmental policy so controversial? The only plausible policy reasons to oppose environmental protection, and indeed, the primary arguments anti-environmental advocates raise on virtually all of the major environmental controversies of the last several decades, are the beliefs that a clean environment…
1. Requires unacceptable compromises in our economic well-being, or
2. Places unreasonable restrictions on human freedoms.
This book demonstrates how such concerns are ill founded. The arguments and evidence I offer instead support how and why well-designed policies for environmental protection will enhance economic development, create greater employment, and provide more democratic ground rules for the economy."
David pays close attention to the theory of markets, the assumptions that lie behind political [mis]perceptions of markets versus regulation, and why those assumptions are often invalid, leading to market failure. He then makes a powerful case for why appropriate regulation is not only essential to enable markets but increases economic growth, jobs and innovation.
To realize these benefits we have to overcome the various myths that free market fundamentalists use to undermine good regulation and, ironically, undermine economic growth. Myths about the evils of government intervention, for example, often drive businesses that would obviously benefit from better environmental standards to oppose any regulation as bad for business. Learning how to recognize and exploit these situations is the key to many of David’s successes in getting business support for better regulations.
The last 30 years have seen remarkable changes in how energy is used in California. Scarecrow’s introduction shows a graph of how California’s per capita electricity use has been constant since 1975, while the electricity use for the U.S. as a whole has increased 50%. There are lots of reasons why this happened, but a good deal of the change was due to consistent pursuit of public policies that supported energy efficiency. And it didn’t involve sacrifice: California’s beer is just as cold, and its homes are just as large and as warm as elsewhere.
Many of these decisions were difficult. California pioneered efficiency standards that increased the initial costs of buildings and appliances but saved consumers billions of dollars over time. California was also a pioneer in creating utility-financed efficiency programs that increased utility rates, but lowered utility bills. In the 70s and 80s these were hugely controversial public policies; there were bills introduced in the California Legislature to abolish the Energy Commission in 19 of the first 20 years of the Commission’s existence, but the CEC is still there.
But what is remarkable is that looking back, all of the difficult decisions were consistently supported by both Democratic AND Republican Commissioners and governors. In fact, California had more years of Republican governors than Democratic, and hence more Republican commissioners. So efficiency is not a partisan issue.
Even more remarkable is the change in perspective in the building, appliance and utility industries. The building industry in particular was vociferously opposed to standards because they feared the additional initial costs, and because philosophically, as David explains, they opposed regulation. Overtime there has been almost a 180 degree change in attitude, and now each triennial update of the standards are 10-15% tighter, with little opposition. Industry has learned that efficiency is not anti-business or anti-growth, and in fact, is a value feature of their products.
David’s book shows us how this transformation can happen. He examines the myths of anti-environmentalists as well as environmentalists, and the motivations of the many stakeholders. As he says, no one supports pollution or wasting energy. The California experience shows not only that efficiency works, but also that there can be broad consensus around the public policies that provide good regulation and economic growth. If we are going to make dramatic changes in how energy is used in the U.S. and the world, we’re going to have to learn the lessons in David’s book.



118 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
David, Welcome to the Lake.
John, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
I’m glad to be here with my great friend and colleague David Goldstein. It’s a pleasure to introduce David, and start a conversation about “Saving Energy, Growing Jobs.”
David, why is energy efficiency an important issue for public policy?
Because energy efficiency–or the lack thereof–is at the heart of the economic problems that America is facing. If we can solve the fundamental problems, we can address economic recovery and environemntal protection at the same time
Do you have a sense of whether the Obama Transition Team understands the importance of energy efficiency? Are the focused on the right things? What would you advise them to do?
Welcome, David and John. Who’s the guy in the picture?
David, your book deals a lot with the myths that dominate debates about environmental regulation and its effect on economic growth. Your examples all show growth/jobs are helped by well-designed regulations, and California’s experience is the proof. What’s the key to “well designed”?
The initial signs are very encouraging. I met with some of the energy transtion team and they understand the importance of energy efficieny (EE) to energy policy better than any administration yet to take office in 35 years. I am not so sure that alll of them appreciate fully the link to our current economic crisis and am hopeful that we will have the opportinioty to convince them
don”t know how true but today I read 2 google searches use enough energy to heat a cup of tea…if true that has to change
i doubt that this is true. There have been widely publicized but erroneous reports about the internet accounjting for huge amounts of energy use,but actually it is only about 2% of electricity. Reading online uses less energy than printin paper
David, I’m interested in your response to John’s question (5). From here, seems that in the new team, emphasis on renewables still crowds out efficiency, and interest in new energy production infrastructure (i.e., new national transmission network) is pre-empting other potentially more significant efficiency gains in making/using electricity
We should probably worry more about our bigger and brighter tv screens.
Are there plans to set standards for televisions? And what about those converter boxes?
Well it is certainly one of them but financial system melted down due to idiocy and greed.
I was curious if you have looked at total energy consumption and spun out any scenarios for, in the face of peak energy and peak oil, what kind of strategies can sustain what kinds of energy consumption for what size populations?
Personally, I’m looking for a way to reduce the usage on the two biggest users in MY house: heating hot water and keeping food cold. The difference in cost between point source and traditional tank heaters is really huge.
Data centers use a lot of power, but it’s small relative to the total. The good news is that internet companies are also pretty smart, and understand efficiency and climate issues. So they are quite focused on efficiency in their servers. Like Google’s green energy campaign.
to Comment 6
There is a lot of detail to well designed programs but here are a few key principles:
1) States like Ca and VT and NY and OR and others have had 35 years experience in designing and implementing programs ans seeing what works and what doesnt. So have a number of progressive utilities. Looking at the track record of what has worked and what has failed and why is critical.
2) Programs should pay incentives based on performance and not on cost.
3)
Programs should be desinged to reinforce other program types. Thus standards should support incentives and vice versa
I am in no way an energy specialist but I would guess that the rumor of internet energy usage is because of periodic articles in places like the NY Times on Server Farms and their energy usage.
Hello David!
Regarding the topic of environmental regulation: can you talk about how we can overcome the “disconnect” between state and federal agencies when it comes to the overlap between energy efficiency and the “environment”?
to #13
The patterns of enerfgy use in a home are not simple. Often hiring a contractor who isw a qualified energy rater and works with an EnergyStar partner program is agood start. Instantaneous water heaters can save a lot of energy if they are located near the user of water. But if they are 25 feet of pipe away, they may not work as well. Using more efficient water consumers–showerheaeds dishwashers clothes washers can also help. Refrigerator efficinecy depends on the original product and lists can be founjd at
ENERGYSTAR.GOV or CEE1.org
A great of attention is focused now on TVs. There is a new test procedure that includes electricity used during use–the old procedure only looked at standby power (when the TV is off). Now the manufacturers are bringing out new TVs at the CES show, and bragging about how efficient they are.
I note the companies are doing this while their trade association loudly opposes new standards. Which is part of the problem with the public discussion about efficiency and policy.
David -
The biggest oilfield we have is our own gas tanks.
Yes, energy use in data centers is very high–it’s also an untapped area of a commercial building for efficiency. That’s why there’s a big focus on them now. Basically, it’s a piece of the pie that hasn’t been looked at until now…
David — at the end of each person’s comment, there is a “Reply” link. If you hit that,it will list the comment #, the commenter, and you bring up the reply box.
One key feature of well-designed programs are efficiency standards and utility incentives working together. Incentives can increase the market share for efficient products, and then standards can raise the bar for minimum efficiency. It’s “push-pull.”
TO #12
Most scenarios for low energy use face a dilemma: we can document the ability to save about 30% of total energy demand in the US using only known techns you can buy today that also save lots of money. There is less info about saving 50% or 70% so there is less scientific basis to make stroger claims; but that doesnt mean they are wrong. I am confidnt that if we establish real markets for energy eff we can do far better tahn almost any researsher would dare to say. Could Nikon have predicted in 1995 how good of a digial camera they could produce in 2009? Could Apple have predicted the iPod or the power of a laptop?
The only or main disconnect i can see today is when states establish tough energy/environmental standards and the feds overturn them. Exapmles are CA standards for greenhouse emissions of cars and water efficiency of clothes washers, or MA standards for furnace efficieincy. I hope and expect the new administraiont to work on more of a partnership basis with states, as the DOE Authorization Act ofr 1976 or7 requries
Can you talk about how you would do that in the auto industry?
I’m concerned by the continued focus on standards, without the rewards–all stick and no carrot.
So long as gas remains cheap, it’s hard for manufacturers to make a decent profit off of more efficient cars (though I’d argue that Diesels do better in the effect than hybrids). Yet no one has the political will to do gas taxes to raise the price of gas (or even just to keep it stable, which given the events of last summer might eb enough).
Do you have suggestions for other incentives for manufacturers, given the reality that only about 5% of consumers think of efficiency (as opposed to low cost of ownership) as a benefit?
To agree with David’s point about not knowing how far efficient can go, look at the graph of the electricity use by refrigerators over time. In 1984 we set a California standard for refrigerator use of 950 kWh/year in 1992–manufacturers said it couldn’t be done–that California would be using iceboxes again. They met that standard, and we’ve gone beyond it–frigs today use about 450 kWh/year.
Every time we think we’ve reached the limit of efficient, we find more good ideas.
There is a need for citizens and public interst organizations to argue for more emphasis on efficiency. Efficiency is greener, cheaper (meaning more econimic stimulus, faster, and larger than any other resource, even including renewables. The good news–that no one gets rich off efficiency because its benefits are spread more democratically, is bad news politically because if someone can get rich on green tech they will make this known to Congress and the
Admin. Conventional energy and even reneavbles have trade associations while effiuicney doesnt
It’s a hard problem. Renewables are motherhood and apple pie, and sexy. PV panels and wind turbines look good. An efficient frig looks just like the one next to it.
Which is why David’s next book is called Invisible Energy (no joke).
The problem is not cheap gas. Even in countries where gas was over $8 a gallon efficiency (as opposed to mgg average), which may reflect car size an power preferecne is not that much better.
we need both carrots and sticks, but gas price is not much of either, in practice or in theory.
CA passed a law that would tax low-mpg cars and rebate high mpg over a decade ago but the law was vetoed. Push-pull incentives coudl be stratified by car size so the encouraged only efficinecy and not just smaller cars if we wanted
The Obama Recovery Plan supposedly contains funding to make efficiency retrofits in “government buildings”, but is there anything about residential/commercial? Should there be, and what would be the delivery mechanism? utilities? Other?
One carrot for efficient autos that’s been proposed around 1990 in California is “feebates”. There would be fees on inefficient cars that would be rebated to efficient cars. So it’s revenue neutral and self-funded. Auto companies killed it of course.
Nice to hear some good things about California’s contribution to something good, at this site. Even if it’s from a guest. (Thanks for that. I mean it.)
My sister just returned from Egypt and one of the first things she told me was about the horrible smog is there. She asked me if I remembered how when we were young in the 50’s and 60’s and played outside on really smoggy days, that our lungs hurt. Things have improved a lot in LA.
Actually there are others, such as emissions standards that larger industrial customers must deal with. Many large energy efficiency projects impact the emissions levels (usually lower them, ironically) they’ve filed with state and federal agencies–if they implement the project, they must re-file or go out of compliance. Many will not, because they don’t want to “rock the boat”. Another example of needing better comprehensive, integrated energy and environmental planning.
To elaborateon what John wrote, CA is considering setting standards on TVs and one major mfgr is supporting them. EnergyStar has a new spec on TV efficiencuy and CEE is in the process of setting or has set even more ambitious spec’s. Once it becomes in the TV industry’s interest to compete on efficinecy, they will be able to do lots more, as Johns observation about last week’s electronics show demonstates
I’m curious if either of you have a comment on the “statewide energy efficiency program” approach (Energy Trust in Oregon, Efficiency Vermont, Focus on Energy in Wisconsin) versus the individual utility efforts in other states?
Did I clog the blog? Haven’t seen more Q or A for quite some time now???
NRDC is working with a broad coalition to advocate programs for retrofit incentives for ALL buildings and has developed detailed program specs that are widely suported among stateholders. we are optimistic that Congress and the Obama admin will accept these. There are some ten times the opportunity in the private building sectgor than in govt bldgs.
And this is GREAT econ stimulus–local jobs, money savings after just a few years to even if America has to borrow the money to do it we can pay it back qyickly. And the jobs are in the hard-suffering construction sector. Also if utiity bills are reduced some homeonwers on the edge wont default
New comments show up after you post a new comment. If you do not post a new comment, you have to periodically refresh the page to see the new comments.
David and others are working on a program to fund home retrofits.
Homes and commercial buildings get tax incentives, which David has been key to creating over the last six years.
Another good idea that we hope to get passed by Congress this year is a requirement that commercial buildings get “benchmarked,” that is, there energy use is compared to other similar buildings and owners and occupants would know if there building was efficient or inefficient. We think this is a key way to get the market to work.
It depends on the local situation. Many utities are enthusiastic about efficiency and are regulated in such a way that this enthusiasm is rewarded to sharefholders. Since the utilities are long term business contacts with everyone, this is a good way to go. Other non-utiliyt approaches have also proven successful
There’s an 800# gorilla roaming around america and that is poorly built and insulated homes, with windows that leak energy live a sieve.
Fixing those is a major undertaking.
Toby -
I’ve been working on an idea that centers around local groups getting together to buy the heat pipe type of solar thermal collectors by the container. Base them on a political meet-up.
That’s 35 – 16 tube collectors and their manifolds per 20 ft. container. That’s 35, 4 – person families.
Still wrestling with the structure, thought about a co-op format. Wrote about it at Kos to get some feed back. Now, I’m looking at another set-up.
A National Solar Co-Op
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..195/682206
A 20ft. container with 35 – 16 tube units costs less than $1,400 per unit at Long Beach, now. That’s in the ball game with everything else, and that’s without the Federal, and local credits, and rebates.
This is a number from the Sunda people, these tubes are really engineered well.
David–your book talks a lot about market failures, and we’ve been talking about some of the policies that try to overcome them. Can you tell us why it’s so hard to get policies adopted that are fixing clear problems?
The tax deduction for efficient commecial buildings was extended for 5 years in the bailout bill. We are working to extend the incentives for new homes and for air conditioning and wter and space heating equipment.
These have been effective–as home construction was plummeting 20%+ from 06 to 07, use of the tax credit for efficient new homes almost tripled
Hit refresh.
California had a big debate about whether to create a statewide efficiency provider. The utilities were already there doing a good job, so we stuck with that. But some states have been very successful with the statewide model.
Yes. We have the infrastructure of contractors and raters to do thisin all 50 states but it is about 100 times too small. Retrofit incenvitves for both low income and general housing can build up this infrastructre pretty quickly. It would also be nice to get lenders to recognize energy and location efficiency in underwriting loans. A $1000 a month mortgage with utulity costs of $200 a month and transportation costs of $600 is more risky of a loan than $1300 of mortgage plus $100 of utiities and $300 of tranportation, but for many families the bank would make the former loan and refuse the latter,even though total obligations are $100 a month less.
Even today. We may be still creating more toxic loans
Here’s my response to the whole television discussion. I don’t watch it, much. It is not a necessity in my life. I can get news on the internet. I read books for entertainment.
And, I don’t have to rant here about stoopid reporters. I don’t care.
But then you stil need to care about the efficiency of your monitor, which is essentailly the same device as a TV.
Standards and labelling and incentives for monitors and computers are needed adnd are being devfelopd
Can you tell us a little about your experiences in trying to get the federal DOE to adopt appliance standards, after they preempted California’s standards? And do you see that changing?
One of the other great things David has done is create RESNET–the Residential Energy Services Network. We need to train people to audit homes and do the retrofits, which is what RESNET can do. But it’s a chick and egg problem (market failure!). We don’t have auditors because there’s no demand, and there’s no financial incentive because people say there aren’t enough auditors to implement it.
Today we needs jobs and efficiency. A chance to do both!
Fees to whom?
To the manufacturers, or the end users?
And if it’s to the end users, isn’t it a regressive tax?
If it’s to the manufacturers, then you’re still not making efficiency, rather than cost, a benefit.
There has been a strong idealogically based response that markets always produce optimal results no matter what–a gross misreading of economic theory which says that UNDER A STRONG SET OF ASSUMPTIONS markets produce optimial results. I discuss this is Saving Ennergy in depth in CH 4.
In large part this book was written becuase there was no literature outside of a few obsure economics papers about the misinterpretation of economics taht i call economic fundamentalism–taking economics as revealed truth rather than science.
David -
I found a federal loan program on the DSIRE site for government buildings, and it was repaid via the savings on the energy bills.
No anything about this type of funding ?
Well, yes. There are also a lot of others things for me to care about. Things are on a list. Right now, my monitor is not at the top of my list.
My home has double paned glass windows and all the light bulbs are energy efficient. I sweep the porch and drive instead of hosing. I’m a 56 year old hippie who doesn’t wash her jeans every day. :)
per BevW
Any opinions about vertical farming?
DOE in my observation has not taken its obligations on appliance efficiency seriously under any administration of either party–the CA Energy Commission has set tighter standards, revised them more often, and has initiated standards proceedings that resulted in final rules on more products than DOE even with less authority (again under both Rs and Ds).
We hope that citizens can convince the incoming
Administraion to change this–many of their nominees understand teh problem
Sorry -
Know anything about this type of funding ?
It’s a fee to the purchaser of inefficient cars, that is used to rebate to purchasers of efficient cars. To manufacturers, they could then make more money selling efficient cars, which is what we want–not SUVs, which is what we’ve had.
Your response is a perfect example of a market failure–normal humans cannot prioritize everything at once, and since efficiency means deciding on hundreds of things, lots of good options fall off the table.
The solution is to make it easy. If you want a new monitor, even the worst one will have OK energy efficieny; the better ones will be labelled as EnergyStar, the best will come with rebates or super-star labels.
Or maybe green retailers will just stock the best ones, like some grocers may just stock orgamic food
There a quite a few innovative load schemes, and all should be expanded. California has had a revolving load fund for local governments that did just what you said–loan money for retrofits that was paid back from utility bill savings–and then the money is loaned again. Very successful, and could be expanded if there were more state funds available as seed money.
On-bill financing is another good option. Utility pays for your retrofit, then you pay back on your uility bill.
Berkeley has a new program where the loan is attached to your property tax–so the committment to repay stays with the home if it is sold.
What about mass merchandisers, like Walmart, Costco, etc. Are there opportunities to influence their wholesale purchases/orders e.g. from China, so that what they offer makes energy sense?
When i was a teen , my school had a gardening program where a student was given a 2 by 3 meter plot to grow a dozen vegetables. It amazes me how much food you can produce in a plot the size of fraction of a Manhattan back yard.
I think there are lots of opportunities for people who like this type of activity
We may agree on the need for better decision about Green. But, we also might live in different financial worlds.
I can’t even think about buying a new monitor.
Mortgage, food, stuff like that.
But, I hear you.
Yes. NRDC has been working with WALMart already and is talking with other chains about stocking more efficient equipment. A buyer the size of Wal Mart does not have to worry as much about what is on the market today–they can write a spec demanding yet-unavailable levels of efficiency or some other environmental attribute and suppliers will have to comply.
Sort of like a standard but entirely within the scope of the market
Financing rules are a large part of the energy problem–and also the financial meltdown.
The mortgage credit crisis is not only due to subprime lending: even the giant government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and FreddieMac are seeing their portfolio values decimated by defaults, and they participated only minimally in sub-prime lending
Defaults appear not to be random: they have a very clear pattern that has mysteriously been overlooked by the financial services sector. Mortgage defaults often occur in places where the need to drive is very high—sprawling suburbs with little or no transit service. Areas with high location efficiency—compact, walkable neighborhoods with good transit services have in many cases been largely immune from the credit crisis. What data we have suggests that the lower the auto transportation costs associated with living in a certain neighborhood, the lower the probability of default.
This is not surprising: at 18% of household expenses, transportation costs are very large. Note that even at $4 a gallon gas, the energy portion of these costs is much less than 25%.
A rational energy policy would consider transportation and energy expenses in underwriting loans , and might have avoided a substantial if not dominant portion of the risk that is now afflicting the economy.
This would make the right decions on energy almost automatic–the lender would allow larger loans when the consumer does the right thing
One of David’s NRDC colleagues has been remarkably successful in working with Walmart to get them to actively support efficiency standards. He recently went to China with some purchasers from Walmart and Sam’s Club to visit the manufacturers of the flat panel displays. Turns out they are making more efficient products. And it helps to have efficiency advocates working together with the largest retailers. It’s a great story.
Sounds good to me.
Actually, states like CA and WI have pushed mass merchandisers like Walmart and Home Depot and the smaller ones too to stock energy efficient products. Wisconsin’s energy efficiency programs work through the market channels with the product wholesalers to encourage them to stock these products. Market pull/push works. Program evaluation results back it up.
Thanks very much, fwiw perhaps indoor farming is a better descriptor than vertical farming.
Thanks for coming to FDL.
What is your estimate of ’shovel ready’ efficiencey and conservation projects expenditure that could be used as a stimulus relatively soon?
You say that the incoming administration is very friendly to your ideas. I wonder why energy efficiency programs has not played a larger role in the discussion of the stimulus. I have seen a public opinion poll saying that almost 80% of the public approves of that general type of spending. CA had to conduct a crash conservation program in response to the energy crisis here following deregulation, so thre are models to follow.
These kinds of comments caused me to buy your book. Scarecrow’s posts throughout the years and in this thread also played a significant part.
The next step might be to get home improvement stores to offer energy retrofit contracting and rating services. they could train and register their workers to meet the best national standards such as those of RESNET ( http://www.RESNET.us ) and the Building Performance Institute. A thorough retrofit of a house could cost over $5000 but would reduce total monthly payments and cut energy use by 30% to 50% or more; also well trained contractors can identify other problems such as moisture or mold or indoor air hazards before it is too late
We’ve all seen the ads on TV about the new digital TV adapter you have to buy when they switch from analog to digital over-the-air broadcast. There will be millions of those sold, not only in the US, but internationally. So there was a discussion among several countries about how to regulate their efficiency. Mfrs said they had to use 14 watts–couldn’t be done with less power. California set a standard in 2004 of 8 watts on, 1 watt in standby.
Now you can go to the EnergyStar website and see a list of 20+ converter boxes that meet the California levels.
A key part of the story was NRDC working with WalMart and them going together to the federal government urging that the federal subsidy program include an efficiency requirement–that is, the feds are giving out $40 coupons to subsidize the purchase of the boxes. But they included the efficiency requirement. Wa la (sp?). Manfacturers found a way to reduce the power use by more than 50%…
Also, more and better training technicians and contractors appears repeatedly in your reposonses. Community colleges, where a lot of this kind of education takes place, will be experiencing significant cutbacks over next year because of the panic and recession. How big a national training program would be needed, and how long would it take to get it classroom ready?
NRDC estimates that about $3-4 billion of federal money in 2009-10 could leverage almost $10 billion in each of home retrofit and commercial retrofits. There is almost 50 times this potential in PROJECTS that are shovel ready but the human infrastructure to do the work is far too small. The good news is that training is availble and so the rate of deployment should grow with good promotion and project management. Many economists are most worried about a Japan-style recession where the economy might be stopped from shrinking in two years but could be stuck with no growth for a decade or more. So even a “small” program of $10-20 B could be important because it ramps up to big program in a few years. And a program that may not require goverment money forever.
It would take no time to get it to classrooms. The training curriculum already exist.
Great question. All the talk about limited the Recovery funding to “shovel ready” infrastucture project seems to miss important linkages like the one you point out. If we want to fund energy retrofits, we need to be funding the community colleges that train the people to do it. We’re not thinking broadly enough, I’m afaid.
The programs are already available, so it would just be an issue of the college contacting the content provider and setting up the classes.
How many people? There are some 5000 raters now providing about 200k ratings a year. We would want to retrofit all homes every 15 years or so ; so this is about 6 M homes per year. So a factor of 30 or so scaleup–we need to train about 150,000 raters. Ratings cost about 10% of total project cost so contractor staff is probably about 5 times as big, or one million or so contractor crafts people who would need additional training .
(All really rough nunbers)
Late to the party just bought the book online Scarecrow’s graph sold me. I think Obama should sell the economic stimulus plan as sure it will create jobs we need right now but it it will pay for itself in increased energy savings.
When the Republicans vote against the Economic Stimulus plan they are VOTING FOR HIGHER TAXES!
Remember the Obama plan is to make schools and other government buildings more fuel efficient that means less cost to heat and cool them.
TaxPayers pay those costs.
Let me say this again TaxPayers pay these costs.
Maybe Obama should make the Chevy Volt the new Police Squad Car with government guaranteed sales GM could expand production.
Every police station that has the money to buy a new squad car but can’t afford the Volt but wants to Obama pays the difference in price.
Long term decreased fuel costs free up city budgets. Short Term Detroit is Saved! and then we throw a Party like its 1933 and the New Deal is Back!
“Happy Days are Here Again “
Thanks to both of your for responses, I was overeager and already asked about what kind of training program would be reasonable to ramp up over short term.
I wonder why the incoming administration has not done more PR and advocacy straight to public on this. I do not know if I agree with posts here that say that they are just neoliberal Reaganesque, but such programs would seem to be very popular with the public, and I wonder why this wouldn’t be aggressively sold to the public, especially after all the campaign talk.
I think this is a great idea IF we ensure the contractors receive proper training first. The WI res program trains its home auditors before “certifying” them…we just want to make sure customers get real efficiency expertise…
What about using the troops the Romans had there troops build all kind of construction projects.
I dont know if they have gotten into this kind of detail yet. Efficiency still does not have the visibility such that high officials realize that they need to think seriously about training and marketing of programs
Thanks. You should send your worksheets to Obama Inc. to show them how to get specific!
There are finally programs like this starting up at the Tech Colleges here in WI. It took too long (!) but what a great resource and training opportunity.
We can sell it as KBR and the Freemarket failed to build Iraq that is part of why we lost. The Army needs building skills remember you can’t build a Democracy without the word build.
Plus when the kids get out of the army they will have job skills insulating homes, installing windows, building turbines etc.
This is the key point we have to make: EE is much better than conventional stimulus.
Why?
The fundamental problems facing the American economy are not broadly-based concerns that can be addressed easily through conventional government interventions, such as changing short term interest rates, stimulating consumer spending, or reducing government deficits. In the past, many economic slowdowns were due to broad problems such as weakening consumer demand or increasing general inflation. These could be dealt with by adjustments in fiscal and monetary policy.
Most of the problems facing the American economy today relate to the weaknesses of specific sectors of the economy. These weaknesses are not random or accidental, but rather are the result, to a greater or lesser degree, of the failure to address the sorts of energy policies that I have described.
Conventional economic stimulus won’t work effectively to address these problems, because it will worsen some of the problems at the same time that it helps solve some others. Our faulty energy polices are the economic equivalent of driving a car with the brakes on. Pressing harder on the gas pedal won’t solve the problem, it will just overheat the brakes.
This is an apt metaphor: the brakes are the high cost of energy–which results in an outflow of dollars from the United States–and the failures of markets that thwart competition and innovation.
Getting real efficiency is, as David says, crucial. We desperately have to avoid the kinds of programs from the 80s where solar hot water systems and windfarms were heavily subsidized based on the cost of the installation, not the performance. The result were thousands of crappy hot water systems that cost too much and produced little benefit.
So we have to design these programs carefully, and avoid the black eye solar got.
Yes, fundamentally, energy efficiency addresses multiple problems and produces solutions. But right now, it can keep people employed–contractors in both the residential and business sectors, engineers, and their employees. It contributes to product sales and manufacturing (stuff gets installed) and all the people that work in those businesses. It reduces our reliance on fossil fuels and coal. Etc.
They could off papers for ramping up GI bill. That was a big switch in curriculum over a rather short time. They still must be lying around someplace.
I will get the book and write some congress people.
Thanks again for coming here. I think this kind of very practical nuts and bolts stuff is very important. Too bad our leaders do not have the imagination to communicate these issues to the public.
How about we shorten it to the less money the government spends on energy the less money it will need in taxes.
You have to spend money short term to make money
And The less money you spend on energy the more money you have to spend on the economy.
But we still have to fix the bridges safety like energy efficiency and Health is another cost the GOP does not count.
Are there good summaries of successful state programs, with ROI and cost-benefit measures? If so, where can I find them? I followed the CA program in the news (’cause I was stuck in the middle of it), but never checked much into the detailed statistics or long run follow-up.
(But maybe that is in the book)
Naturally the Administration and Congrss are getting bombarded with “good ideas”, many of which are self-serving or the same old solution being trotted out to solve a different problem. The challenge is for efficiency advocates to speak out effectively enough and in a way that displays open-mindedness that we have a key part of the solution–and a key part that costs much less than 5% of the $1 trillion proposed solution even though it will solve much more than 5% of the problem and do it with a much more assured likelihood of success.
Have you seen this?
http://marketplace.publicradio…..dget_hero/
Its a video game where you can solve the federal deficit sure you can give more money for green jobs and healthcare but it does not show the increased benefits such spending would have for society.
Do you know a better preferably free budget stimulus game?
I like to play with numbers green, safe and healthcare type numbers.
There is or was a long documjent called something like dsmbestpractices.com or maybe .org that tells implementers how to design and implement programs from the ground up
Next10 has a nice budget simulation.
Games such as this always are based on assumptions and models that once you understand them usually you can see how they predetermine the outcome regardless of the player. When discussing smart growht or efficiency, the models often are blind to the facts that one passenger mile on transit can reduce driving by 5 vehicle miles or that one dollar spent on energy can cut energy use over time by $3 and cut energy prices to nonparticipants in the investment by $2 and can offer non-energy benefits that may swamp the $3.
David, you’re done a lot of work in China and Russia, very different places. Can you say something about the challenges there?
FWIW, here’s another example of how important your book is Neo-con Milwaukee County Executive doesn’t want help from the stimulus
America’s business model does not work with gas over $2 a gallon.
Why am I translating everything into sound bytes today I think I’ve watched to much news.
David — We saw successes in California, and there are good stories in a few other states, but we have to concede the basic lessons haven’t been learned nationally. Part of the answer is in your book — all the myths, the false assumptions about markets versus regulation etc. But it’s also possible that in the few states where good stuff happened, we just got lucky. Maybe it was because, e.g., there was a John Wilson advising Chuck Imbrecht, and Chuck was willing to handle his Republican Governor and let us do our thing?
I’ll tell you a story. During one of the crises, the CEC staff was pushing hard for better regs, and there was a lot of push back from industry and the legislature, so I went to the Chairman and asked him whether we were creating too many problems for him? He told me he’d support us; we should do what we thought was right and he’d worry about the politics. I can tell you, that message emboldened the Staff to keep going — but not every agency has a Chair like that.
So were we lucky? Was it just key personalities coming together at the right time, a Wilson, a Goldstein, an Imbrecht – and Blees, Schmidt, Radcliff, Nehemiah, et al? or it there a broader lesson there that shows we can take those successes national?
CaliforniaEnergyEfficiency.com is a good source.
And the California Measurement Advisory Council has s done of detail on the costs and savings of the California utility programs (very wonky).
Surprisinly the problems are prety much the same regardless of economic or political system and wealth.
Let’s start with Russia.
The political and economic systems could not have seemed more different between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, from the first meeting, it was striking that the institutional positions on climate change and the advocacy issues that an environmentalist faced were almost identical in the Soviet Union and the United States. Amazingly, skeptics of global climate change made the same arguments in Moscow that they were making in Washington, DC. Both Soviets and Americans insisted that the science on global climate change wasn’t good enough to make any firm policy recommendations. Officials in both countries who wanted to do little or nothing about climate change insisted that the economic cost of mitigating emissions would be staggering.
Further visits to the Soviet Union revealed the same pattern in other industries. Talking to utility officials in the Soviet Union about the need for utilities to promote energy efficiency, I ran into the same dismissive attitudes or concerns about administrative workability that I did with utilities in the United States.
More recently, advocacy for higher energy-efficiency standards in buildings is the same in the United States as it was in the Soviet Union: the more progressive government officials propose improvements in the code; the building industry argues that any change from the status quo would either be technically infeasible or non-cost-effective. Arguments occur over whether to require prescriptive compliance with the standard or to allow performance-based tradeoffs. And, as in the United States, once dramatic improvements in energy efficiency are required, it is often found that the cost of meeting them in practice is not only much less than projected, but actually is zero or negative.
Why is this important? Because if opposition to efficiency standards characterizes the behavior of Soviet industry, the idea that energy efficiency regulation in particular or environmental regulation in general is an intrusion of big government on private industry is fundamentally incorrect. The Soviet Union was the epitome of big government, yet the identical arguments were made by people wearing the identical career hats.
This experience also reinforces the explanation that the real reasons for resistance to energy efficiency or to environmental improvements relate to the human failures, and to a lesser extent to = market failures.
The same is true of my experience in China. At this point the central leadership wants to do the right things on efficiency but has trouble getting the provinces and cities to enforce their policies. Just as the CA Energy Commission would set great building energy standards and then have a hard time getting some counties to enforce them seriously.
See we need games framed by our facts not theirs. The latest economic collapse when the bankers models were off and our ideas were ignored. Its the same with the environment safety and healthcare the true cost of stuff never enters their minds.
As we come to the end of this great Book Salon,
David, Thank you very much stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon
with us discussing your new book and the topic of saving energy and how to accomplish it.
John, Thank you for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, if you haven’t bought this great book yet, there is a link above.
Thanks all.
Thanks for coming by Great Salon
The part that IS reproducible is having an open and tranparent public process where others than just industry can present testimony and where decisions are made by a board that is acting in a public forum, after having heard the public comment first hand.
Also having an agnecy with overall authority for energy. efficiency stanards are a political problem but so is siting a nuclear plant or even a big wind farm. If the agency knows it has to make one unpopular decision or else another it is more likely to go with the facts and the science than self-serving arguments
A little history might be interesting. In the early 1970s electricity demand in California was growing about 7% per year—a very high growth rate. And about 75% of the state’s electricity was generated from oil, so when the oil embargo happened in 1974 electricity prices skyrocketed. Utilities wanted to build 20+ nuclear plants on the California coast to both meet the rapid growth, and also to reduce the use of oil for generation. Environmentalists wanted an agency created that could develop alternative power sources, and also have the ability to reduce the growth in demand. So the California Energy Commission was created to do those things: conduct the environmental and economic adjudicatory review to license power plants, develop renewable energy, and set efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.
By 1990: electricity growth was down to a more manageable 2% per year, no oil was used for electricity generation, no new nuclear plants were built or planned in California, 75% of the new electricity services were provided by efficiency, and the rest was from clean and efficient cogeneration, and renewable energy. So we tend to think things worked pretty well.
Part of it was people, but it was also the energy crisis of the early 70s that created an agency with the powers to deal with the problem.
One of the things that sets California’s experience apart from other states and governments is that the Legislature and Governor delegated a great deal of regulatory control to a commission of five commissioners, appointed on a rotating basis to five year terms. The Commission also has a Public Advisor appointed by the Governor, which highlights the importance placed on public participation in policy making.
In other states policy making authority is retained by the Legislature and Governor. At the national level, Congress has delegated some authority to the U.S. Department of Energy, where decisions are made by the Secretary of Energy.
I’d like to ask David how the structure of government decisionmaking affects the quality of public dialogue and policy outcomes?
Thanks everyone for coming by Great Salon
Wow. That was fast. Great conversation. Thanks David and everyone.
Just want to say thanks to the Firedog Lake people — this has been one of the very few blog discussions I’ve seen that hasn’t quickly degenerated into snide battles over doctrine. Thank you for figuring out how to attract serious participants….
Thank John W and John C and Bev
Thanks very much. This is was very informative.
what I want our politicians to start doing this is framing it the way it is;
“industry can’t get their bills paid by our children they need to clean up bronchitis they dump in my kids air and the cancer they pour in my wifes water…they need to pay their own bills and stop expecting us to do it for them”
It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to charge and drive an electric car.The electricity to charge the car could come from solar or wind generated electricity.If all gasoline cars,trucks,and suv’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of N.D.This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come.Why not invest in setting up some alternative energy projects on a national basis, create clean cheap electricity,create millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and get out from under our dependence on foreign oil.What a win-win situation that would be. There is a great new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in alternative energy.
I’m an NRDC communications hand charged with monitoring what people are saying about us on the web, and just happened across this salon while doing my daily rounds. A pleasure to see such high-level conversation about the issues David works on.
For anyone who wants more David Goldstein, he blogs occasionally at NRDC’s Switchboard site, along with about 100 other staffers. See http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dgoldstein