Comments on: FDL Book Salon Welcomes David Goldstein: Saving Energy, Growing Jobs

By: iwilker

iwilker — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:39:50 +0000

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

By: beyondgreen

beyondgreen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:29:11 +0000

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.

By: perris

perris — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:59:10 +0000

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”

By: wesgpc

wesgpc — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:16:00 +0000

Thanks very much. This is was very informative.

By: David Goldstein

David Goldstein — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:01:06 +0000

Thank John W and John C and Bev

By: JoeBrowder

JoeBrowder — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:01:04 +0000

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….

By: John Wilson

John Wilson — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:52 +0000

Wow. That was fast. Great conversation. Thanks David and everyone.

By: ThingsComeUndone

ThingsComeUndone — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:20 +0000

Thanks everyone for coming by Great Salon

By: John Wilson

John Wilson — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:01 +0000

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?

By: David Goldstein

David Goldstein — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000

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