Al Gore had an op-ed in the Times Sunday, laying out a five-point plan for 100% carbon-free electricity in 10 years:
- Big solar and wind projects from Texas to the Dakotas, and new geothermal plants.
- A “unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity”. This would cost $400 billion, but save $120 billion a year that's wasted under the current regime, according to Gore;
- Conversion to plug-in hybrids, which could also double as electricity storage batteries to plug back into the grid;
- Retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency;
- Cap and trade, leadership on deforestation.
The incoming Dems do indeed have an opportunity and obligation to act, in that
- The public is definitely looking to the government to guide us out of the financial crisis, as well as take the lead on any number of issues where the market has failed.
- Huge chunks of the private sector need the government to step in and save their bacon — and everyone else's, by extension.
- Democrats, who even in normal circumstances are more comfortable with government intervention in the economy, are about to take power.
I'd call that a mandate — a demand by the public (and indeed, by the circumstances themselves) to make things work. And so for better or worse, government will have a freer hand than it's had perhaps since World War II.
I talked with Gore's old pal Rep. Ed Markey about Gore's ambitions and timeline at the convention in August; Markey was politely skeptical that it could be pulled off within ten years.
Then again, that was before the financial crisis and the new consensus that we're going to have to spend our way out of the recession. And with enhanced Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, there are fewer excuses. And furthermore, since the auto companies are begging the federal government for cash, maybe there's now an opportunity to rope in the plug-in hybrid part of Gore's equation. Perhaps many things are possible, or even necessary, that weren't back in August.
Why not a big investment in efficient-energy infrastructure? Is this the silver lining to the financial crisis?
Please share widely!
to stimulate the economy by investing in renewables and, especially, efficiency.
<
p>(“Especially” because renewables give more bang for buck and more stimulus per buck invested).
<
p>However, whenever government picks winners and loses there is the potential to make the wrong choices.
<
p>Gore deserves our respect and I hope the choices follow his lead, and not the usual sausage-factory routine.
<
p>I am apprehensive, though, because of the fundamental weakness of the environmental movement in America, which since the 70s has shrunk to a state where there is really no grass-roots active on these issues.
<
p>Charlie is saying, I think, There’s a mandate for change, and the change that’s needed happens to be green. Right on both counts. But, and I wish it were otherwise, there’s no popular mandate to be green. So, I worry that the connection between Charlie’s first point and his second will be lost.
and I’m frustrated that the cheap-fuel mandate is a hell of a lot stronger than the stop-global-disaster mandate.
<
p>But I think there’s enough general support for the green agenda that it dovetails well enough politically with the stimulus mandate. It gives enviros reason to support re-industrializing the Midwest, and gives Michiganders reason to be green.
<
p>Make the pie higher, I say.
to increase the gas tax, both in the State and the Nation.
I think not, at least on private infrastructure.
<
p>What I do think would be appropriate is:
1. Mandate higher levels of efficiency on appliances, ranging from alarm clocks to large-building boilers.
2. Mandate higher energy efficiency in building codes, ranging from 100,000 sq ft+ buildings down to small single family homes.
3. Train government employees. Large projects can go with third party certification, but smaller projects will rely on the keen eyes and skillset of building inspectors. These guys need to get more training, and individual towns can’t justify it in their budgets.
4. Give the mortgage interest deduction only on the first X sq feet of a home plus an additional y sq feet per dependent. For example, perhaps 1400 square feet + 100 square feet per dependent. Smaller homes are more energy efficient in heating, cooling, lighting, and help save gas because they’re closer together and thus help reduce sprawl. Why are the taxpayers subsidizing a homeowner’s ‘bonus room’ or three car garage?
5. Crank up a national Renewable Portfolio Standard [RPS], which mandates an increasing minimum amount of renewable non-large hydro electricity generation. Each state is different, but states with these policies now are typically relying on wind, landfill gas, sewage gas [human and animal], biofuel [wood chips], and conservation. It doesn’t choose a technology, just requires good results. 28 states have RPS requirements of various aggressiveness, but that means that 22 don’t — including most states in the electricity hog south east and gulf coast.
6. Getting people where they want to go with less fuel is energy efficient. How to do it?
– more train, commuter rail, and subway please.
– higher mpg requirements.
– more HOV lanes.
– more walkable communities — sidewalk requirements, trees, safe crossings, etc.
– more bicycle facilities.
7. Expand net metering, and make it national. If I want to generate electricity at my home, let me sell it to the grid at market rate, even to the point where I can sell a little more than I consume.
8. Require time-based electricity pricing. The reality is that the cost per kWh to meet demand at 3:00 am is much lower than at 3:00 pm. So, why do I get to pay the same? Charge what electricity is worth, and you’ll find that people will do a far better job conserving during the peaks, which will help us avoid burning diesel fuel to meet the peak. With good net metering, it also allows for a transition to plug in electric cars, because the cars will buy and sell electricity from the grid, effectively arbitraging the system to ensure a nice steady demand. This will allow higher utilization of the infrastructure we have and allow the intermittent production of solar and wind to migrate into the system perfectly with no need for additional backup generation.
9. Raise the gas tax. Seriously. It’s been at 18.4 cents for decades. If we’re going to build infrastructure, we ought to pay for it and gas taxes right now are far lower than they’ve been in the past few years. Use the revenue to fund both auto and non-auto transit.
<
p>
<
p>The government need not actually spend much money. Higher standards will result in better spaces coming online continuously. Good electricity legislation will allow the market to function properly, and an RPS requirement will force renewable electricity online at a market price without picking a winner. Sure, the government ought to spend money on public transit, and spend plenty. But, there’s no need to spend much money on private infrastructure if the market is tuned correctly and minimum standards are raised.
namely, that the engines of efficiency are private (including some nonprofit), properly aligned with policy goals through economic and other regulation.
<
p>No one I know of is proposing federal SWAT teams that will swoop down on your house, replace all your light bulbs, and comprehensively apply caulk and insulation.
<
p>Renewables are a different policy area, and that is where the potential for mischief is greatest. Be on guard for “renewable” coal and uranium.
In fact, those SWAT teams exist now. There’s federal money backing the NSTAR, Keyspan, et al efficiency programs. There’s federal grants to pay for all kinds of improvements for homes and businesses w.r.t. energy efficiency.
Are you talking about federal tax credits? Because the utility-administered efficiency programs are paid for by ratepayers. Which is appropriate because they reduce costs for ratepayers.
<
p>I think there’s plenty of room to criticize these tax credits. Renewables and efficiency would probably fare much better in an economic regime in which no energy source or program got any subsidies and all environmental costs were internalized into the price. (And wouldn’t that be popular.)
<
p>But given the current system, having these credits does more good than harm. In an economic sense they move things towards Pareto optimality, which incidentally is a bedrock principle behind the utility efficeincy programs.
<
p>And optional programs are a far cry from a SWAT team.
There’s federal tax incentives and grants for installing solar cells, etc.
<
p>The [voluntary] SWAT teams are funded through the ratepayers, but since the rate itself is set by (state) government and set aside for this program, it’s a tax and spend program by another name.
<
p>I agree with your claim about the tax credits, but that scheme isn’t possible politically or scientifically. It’s dang hard to correctly measure and understand environmental impact. Plenty of good scientists disagree on the extend of damage caused by a source of pollution. So, we do the best we can. Personally, I’d like to see more energy tax and less energy credit [ie lets tax coal fuel and oil fuel and natural gas a bit less instead of subsidizing wind and solar] so that we aren’t subsidizing the general consumption of energy, but we’re not going to get a massive overhaul of all energy financing at the Fed level at once, so the best we can do is tinker a bit at a time and hope that doing it fast enough to be effective but slow enough to see the results is effective.