Comments on: Energy efficiency, Part 4: How does California do it so consistently and cost-effectively? http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:58:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Steve H http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16870 Steve H Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:53:20 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16870 Great. Jeez Cali, you can stop making the rest of the states look bad anytime. However, my state rep and candidate for house rep actually knows what RPS stands for. That's a start...I guess, for Missouri. Now can Cali stop stealing water from the fishes to irrigate their crops? Oh, wait, darn Fed laws/ compacts and what not. Here's to secession! Cheers!!! Great. Jeez Cali, you can stop making the rest of the states look bad anytime. However, my state rep and candidate for house rep actually knows what RPS stands for. That’s a start…I guess, for Missouri. Now can Cali stop stealing water from the fishes to irrigate their crops? Oh, wait, darn Fed laws/ compacts and what not. Here’s to secession! Cheers!!!

]]> By: JMG http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16872 JMG Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:26:50 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16872 Gosh -- mandates!! And not a single cap-and-trade program in the lot; no "put an overall cap on skyshine from streetlights and let builders who use more than their share but allowances from others who use less," etc. Hmmmmm, wonder if this could be a model for other states .... Gosh — mandates!! And not a single cap-and-trade program in the lot; no “put an overall cap on skyshine from streetlights and let builders who use more than their share but allowances from others who use less,” etc.

Hmmmmm, wonder if this could be a model for other states ….

]]> By: JMG http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16873 JMG Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:27:51 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16873 That's "buy allowances" spelled in fumble-fingers font ... That’s “buy allowances” spelled in fumble-fingers font …

]]> By: Peter Foley http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16886 Peter Foley Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:03:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16886 Where did the money come from that is paying for this attempt at perpetual motion? again the waste of dollars to save dimes will impoverish the state and lead to more net pollution. Pop quiz, why does less Kilo Watts cost the hornswoggled Cali-fornicators more then their lucky neighbors in the free states? I'd love to have a business like PG&L's where the taxpayers paid ever more for less product. This issue Demonstrates Joe's leaps of illogic to arrive at an unsolution that reduces freedoms and cash flow for all in the future. [<em>JR: Energy efficiency pays for itself. And yes I agree with you, every time I go to California I see how impoverished the citizens are. But Californians emit one third the pollution per capita in their electricity consumption than the rest of America, so you may not be correct there. With this comment, Peter, you have officially nuked the fridge.</em>] Where did the money come from that is paying for this attempt at perpetual motion? again the waste of dollars to save dimes will impoverish the state and lead to more net pollution. Pop quiz, why does less Kilo Watts cost the hornswoggled Cali-fornicators more then their lucky neighbors in the free states?

I’d love to have a business like PG&L’s where the taxpayers paid ever more for less product.

This issue Demonstrates Joe’s leaps of illogic to arrive at an unsolution that reduces freedoms and cash flow for all in the future.

[JR: Energy efficiency pays for itself. And yes I agree with you, every time I go to California I see how impoverished the citizens are. But Californians emit one third the pollution per capita in their electricity consumption than the rest of America, so you may not be correct there. With this comment, Peter, you have officially nuked the fridge.]

]]> By: Sean http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16938 Sean Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:20:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-16938 Joe, you say that Californians emit 1/3 of the pollution per capita in their electricity consumption. I take it you mean that the total pollution generated by all of the electricity consumed in California, divided by the number of people in California is 1/3 of the same ratio for the US as a whole (minus Californian consumption and population). Is that correct? Joe, you say that Californians emit 1/3 of the pollution per capita in their electricity consumption. I take it you mean that the total pollution generated by all of the electricity consumed in California, divided by the number of people in California is 1/3 of the same ratio for the US as a whole (minus Californian consumption and population). Is that correct?

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-17129 Earl Killian Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:06:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-17129 Peter Foley said, "<i>why does less Kilo Watts cost the hornswoggled Cali-fornicators more then their lucky neighbors in the free states?</i>" Yet more disinformation from Peter Foley. Don't you ever look up any facts instead of making them up? In 2005 California used 7,032 kWh per capita. The average cost of electricity is 12.82 cents per kWh, which gives an annual bill of $901.50. The average for the US is 12,347 kWh per capita, and 8.90 cents per kWh, which gives an annual bill of $1098.88. Peter Foley said, "<i>I’d love to have a business like PG&L’s where the taxpayers paid ever more for less product.</i>" PG&E invests money to generate negawatts. The California Public Utilities Commission allows PG&E to earn a return on this investment. This is a perfectly legitimate, market-oriented policy solution to a classic economics failure of traditional practices. Peter Foley said, “why does less Kilo Watts cost the hornswoggled Cali-fornicators more then their lucky neighbors in the free states?”

Yet more disinformation from Peter Foley. Don’t you ever look up any facts instead of making them up? In 2005 California used 7,032 kWh per capita. The average cost of electricity is 12.82 cents per kWh, which gives an annual bill of $901.50. The average for the US is 12,347 kWh per capita, and 8.90 cents per kWh, which gives an annual bill of $1098.88.

Peter Foley said, “I’d love to have a business like PG&L’s where the taxpayers paid ever more for less product.”

PG&E invests money to generate negawatts. The California Public Utilities Commission allows PG&E to earn a return on this investment. This is a perfectly legitimate, market-oriented policy solution to a classic economics failure of traditional practices.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-17130 Earl Killian Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:13:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-17130 Last time I looked Californians used 46% less electricity per capita than the non-California US, and also their electricity produced less than <b>half</b> the CO2 per kWh. That suggests to me that they are emitting about 27% of the CO2 per capita as the US. Californians have not compromised their living standards in doing so; indeed they benefit from cleaner air and reduced water usage (which is critical in California). Last time I looked Californians used 46% less electricity per capita than the non-California US, and also their electricity produced less than half the CO2 per kWh. That suggests to me that they are emitting about 27% of the CO2 per capita as the US. Californians have not compromised their living standards in doing so; indeed they benefit from cleaner air and reduced water usage (which is critical in California).

]]> By: Sean http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-17142 Sean Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:51:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-17142 Hi Earl, could you post links to the data you looked at the last time you looked? Hi Earl, could you post links to the data you looked at the last time you looked?

]]> By: Jim Bullis http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-21207 Jim Bullis Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:22:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/30/energy-efficiency-part-4-how-does-california-do-it-so-consistently-and-cost-effectively/#comment-21207 Joe and Earl, I just heard that PGE rates are to be increased 5% due to shortage of rain. Huh? What this really means is that financial planning came up short on the assumed amount of "fall from the sky" energy. Thus it will be necessary to buy electricity on the spot market at relatively high prices, and of course coal will burn somewhere unknown to fill the order. If real solutions are to be found, realism is the first order of the day. And there is nothing free market about public utilities which by the nature of things are a monopoly that has to be controlled by government. Joe and Earl,

I just heard that PGE rates are to be increased 5% due to shortage of rain.

Huh?

What this really means is that financial planning came up short on the assumed amount of “fall from the sky” energy. Thus it will be necessary to buy electricity on the spot market at relatively high prices, and of course coal will burn somewhere unknown to fill the order.

If real solutions are to be found, realism is the first order of the day.

And there is nothing free market about public utilities which by the nature of things are a monopoly that has to be controlled by government.

]]>