<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How would you spend $50 billion, Part 2 &#8212; The Alliance to Save Energy Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:25:51 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lucio</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-26294</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-26294</guid>
		<description>The plan should support local sources of renewable energy as a first stage program: wood in the NE, solar in South, etc. Then the plan should go nationally when it would incentive the technologies transfer trades as 2nd phase program. Service support programs are also important but should be linked with technology development plus commercialization because should not invest only in R&amp;D as today. The last important point is about regulation. Old associations and their rules must be changed and adapted to a new era of technology transfer mainly from Europe but also from Asia and Latin America.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The plan should support local sources of renewable energy as a first stage program: wood in the NE, solar in South, etc. Then the plan should go nationally when it would incentive the technologies transfer trades as 2nd phase program. Service support programs are also important but should be linked with technology development plus commercialization because should not invest only in R&amp;D as today. The last important point is about regulation. Old associations and their rules must be changed and adapted to a new era of technology transfer mainly from Europe but also from Asia and Latin America.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sally</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24065</link>
		<dc:creator>Sally</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:06:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24065</guid>
		<description>Brendan,

I think you&#039;re absolutely right that the stimulus package should strive to create longterm jobs, not temporary ones. But increasing funding to the the Weatherization Asistance Program is one of the best ways to create longterm jobs. There are currently more than 15 million households in the United States that qualify for WAP. In the past 30 years about 6 million homes were weatherized through  WAP. At this rate, it would take about 75 years to finish the job (assuming no growth in the number of low-income households over this time). President-elect Obama would like to ramp up to eventually weatherizing 1 million homes a year through WAP. Even at this extremely ambitious rate it would take more than 15 years to weatherize all the homes that currently qualify. Then take into account that many energy efficient home improvements, like normal home improvements, degrade over time, meaning the households weatherized in the early years will be ripe for re-weatherization by the time the last ones are patched up. All of these factors mean that WAP jobs (which include energy auditors and program administrators as well as contractors) are long-lasting and potentially perpetual, making increased funding for WAP an ideal use of stimulus money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brendan,</p>
<p>I think you&#8217;re absolutely right that the stimulus package should strive to create longterm jobs, not temporary ones. But increasing funding to the the Weatherization Asistance Program is one of the best ways to create longterm jobs. There are currently more than 15 million households in the United States that qualify for WAP. In the past 30 years about 6 million homes were weatherized through  WAP. At this rate, it would take about 75 years to finish the job (assuming no growth in the number of low-income households over this time). President-elect Obama would like to ramp up to eventually weatherizing 1 million homes a year through WAP. Even at this extremely ambitious rate it would take more than 15 years to weatherize all the homes that currently qualify. Then take into account that many energy efficient home improvements, like normal home improvements, degrade over time, meaning the households weatherized in the early years will be ripe for re-weatherization by the time the last ones are patched up. All of these factors mean that WAP jobs (which include energy auditors and program administrators as well as contractors) are long-lasting and potentially perpetual, making increased funding for WAP an ideal use of stimulus money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mauri pelto</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24045</link>
		<dc:creator>mauri pelto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24045</guid>
		<description>Eddie:  I looked at the above link and am clear on the difference of FIT-ART, but not their difference to our PURPA as currently applied. The Alliance to Save Energy proposals fit well with their mission to-reduce energy usage.  So though I love alternative energy development proposals they are not the organization to formulate these.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eddie:  I looked at the above link and am clear on the difference of FIT-ART, but not their difference to our PURPA as currently applied. The Alliance to Save Energy proposals fit well with their mission to-reduce energy usage.  So though I love alternative energy development proposals they are not the organization to formulate these.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddie</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24037</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24037</guid>
		<description>The path of least resistance for the new administration and Congress will be to give most of any stimulus package to the largest corporations which have been writing and lobbying feverously since the talk of energy and economic stimulus were first discussed.  

In the electric generation industry given current lobby efforts we would expect to see a push for major grid expansion investments, smart grid/smart meter replacement programs and investment in what is called “clean coal”.  Supporting this strategy would be a major policy blunder in my opinion.

The subject of investment in grid expansion raises a lot of interesting issues.  Is the current grid full or can it handle significant new generation dispersed on local distribution lines?  A Minnesota transmission study shows a lot of available transmission on the distribution grid.  And, I’m afraid the any new wire will be used for coal and not wind….oh yes…eminent domain issues will increase as well.  Smart grid/smart meter makes we wonder what they mean by “smart”.  When you look at the definitions that utilities like to use for smart grid they usually mean smart meters.  A smart meter will just tell you when you’re using electricity so you can run your cloths dryer at night and save you money… and not save you or us any kWh’s.  What it will do is to give the utility a way to charge you more during times of high demand and less during low.  The only bad thing I see here is that if we shift to the time of low cost…we will also likely be switching to the coal option…at least in the central US.  And money into “clean coal”?  Well, I’ll only say…I remember the “coal slurry” projects and their incredible costs. 

There are excellent ideas already expressed in previous letters.  Placing an order with the Big Three for plug-in-hybrids makes a lot of sense.  The open source battery concept is brilliant.  Weatherization with its multitude of benefits should be one major component of any energy stimulus package and On-Bill-Financing seems to be a reasonable method of billing.  
But one strategy does not require a lot of money.  It is a policy change the can be a game changer.
The concept, “feed-in-tariffs” are catching on world wind.  They are responsible for Germany leading the world in renewable energy, Denmark has an aggressive policy and just last week Great Britain decided to follow the lead.  Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington is the current concept leader in D.C.  This is not the place for a complete description of the concept but if you’re interested in a game changing concept take a look at http://www.wind-works.org/index.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The path of least resistance for the new administration and Congress will be to give most of any stimulus package to the largest corporations which have been writing and lobbying feverously since the talk of energy and economic stimulus were first discussed.  </p>
<p>In the electric generation industry given current lobby efforts we would expect to see a push for major grid expansion investments, smart grid/smart meter replacement programs and investment in what is called “clean coal”.  Supporting this strategy would be a major policy blunder in my opinion.</p>
<p>The subject of investment in grid expansion raises a lot of interesting issues.  Is the current grid full or can it handle significant new generation dispersed on local distribution lines?  A Minnesota transmission study shows a lot of available transmission on the distribution grid.  And, I’m afraid the any new wire will be used for coal and not wind….oh yes…eminent domain issues will increase as well.  Smart grid/smart meter makes we wonder what they mean by “smart”.  When you look at the definitions that utilities like to use for smart grid they usually mean smart meters.  A smart meter will just tell you when you’re using electricity so you can run your cloths dryer at night and save you money… and not save you or us any kWh’s.  What it will do is to give the utility a way to charge you more during times of high demand and less during low.  The only bad thing I see here is that if we shift to the time of low cost…we will also likely be switching to the coal option…at least in the central US.  And money into “clean coal”?  Well, I’ll only say…I remember the “coal slurry” projects and their incredible costs. </p>
<p>There are excellent ideas already expressed in previous letters.  Placing an order with the Big Three for plug-in-hybrids makes a lot of sense.  The open source battery concept is brilliant.  Weatherization with its multitude of benefits should be one major component of any energy stimulus package and On-Bill-Financing seems to be a reasonable method of billing.<br />
But one strategy does not require a lot of money.  It is a policy change the can be a game changer.<br />
The concept, “feed-in-tariffs” are catching on world wind.  They are responsible for Germany leading the world in renewable energy, Denmark has an aggressive policy and just last week Great Britain decided to follow the lead.  Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington is the current concept leader in D.C.  This is not the place for a complete description of the concept but if you’re interested in a game changing concept take a look at <a href="http://www.wind-works.org/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wind-works.org/index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brendan</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24029</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24029</guid>
		<description>I realize that this is a stimulus package, but shouldn&#039;t we be trying to create sustainable jobs? I know there are a lot of houses that need reweathering, and thus training someone to do so will give him/her new skills for a job for a few years, but what after that? Is the thought that weatherizing underprivileged homes  create a demand to do so for affluent homes?

Just like we want to spend the money in a way that will lead to long term progress in what is built, we also want to spend the money in a way that will create a long term source of jobs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize that this is a stimulus package, but shouldn&#8217;t we be trying to create sustainable jobs? I know there are a lot of houses that need reweathering, and thus training someone to do so will give him/her new skills for a job for a few years, but what after that? Is the thought that weatherizing underprivileged homes  create a demand to do so for affluent homes?</p>
<p>Just like we want to spend the money in a way that will lead to long term progress in what is built, we also want to spend the money in a way that will create a long term source of jobs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24013</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/06/how-would-you-spend-50-billion-part-2-the-alliance-to-save-energy-plan/#comment-24013</guid>
		<description>Flying pigs and carbon tax....surely this couldn&#039;t fly. Why are they picking on farmers....

&lt;blockquote&gt;
Flatulence tax could bankrupt farmers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/flatulence-tax-could-bankrupt-farmers-1053519.html

Belching cows and pigs could start costing farmers money if a proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.....annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Flying pigs and carbon tax&#8230;.surely this couldn&#8217;t fly. Why are they picking on farmers&#8230;.</p>
<blockquote><p>
Flatulence tax could bankrupt farmers<br />
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/flatulence-tax-could-bankrupt-farmers-1053519.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>news/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>world/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>americas/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>flatulence-tax-could-bankrupt-farmers-1053519.html</a></p>
<p>Belching cows and pigs could start costing farmers money if a proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law&#8230;..annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow&#8230;.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
