Sunday, January 31, 2010

Real-time feedback for consumers

An engineering dean at San Jose State University Engineering Dept, Ms. Belle Wei, recently wrote a clear, organized article on the benefits of real-time 'feedback' when we purchase or use electronic appliances equipment or video games. (Or, drive.)

Knowing what things cost, over the full lifestyle, can guide us to more informed choices, i.e. usually lower cost, presumably energy-efficient selections that do not sacrifice features and, in effect, create demand (a market) for greener devices. This is the "cold beer, hot shower" theory of human behavior: if we can get what we want and pay less for it, we'll go for it.

A similar argument works for Sacramento's electric utility (SMUD) and others: simply giving consumers a monthly report on how they are doing relative to the neighbors can reduce overall electric demand. This is also called 'social norms', or roughly peer pressure.

It does work, but is also a form of 'market knows best'.

However, I think at least two more ingredients might help push along consumer behavior
  • carbon price
  • regulations
In particular, Dean Wei, sites benefits of more efficient appliances as a first step. And I am sure she knows the benefit to China's clear, color-coded refrigerator efficiency labeling - regulations - in its domestic market. (She is also a founder of China-US Green Energy Council.)

The California Energy Commission (CEC) in fact helped push the refrigerator market years ago (and now TV market) by requiring innovation. It worked in the US and brought down the price of refrigerators and increased their efficiency. (The problems begin when we start to buy larger refrigerators and ALSO keep the old ones.) It is no coincidence that China has refrigerator labeling (more in another post).

Industry, like we've seen with recent TV regulations, starts out by saying it can't be done.

Bottom line, we need everything going for us to reduce American energy use per capita and bring anywhere close to the Europeans.

  • feedback to consumer, social norms, etc.
  • regulations
  • carbon price

Article in San Jose Mercury:

More about Dean Wei

Thursday, January 7, 2010

"Cool Cars" - coming soon to California

California cars are a step closer to running 'cooler' (and use less fuel) with plans to have automobile windows transmit less then 40% of the sun's energy (including visible, UV and infrared), thereby reducing interior temperatures on hot, sunny days and the air conditioning load. [By law, automobile windshields must transmit 70% or more of visible light.]

The California Air Resources Board (CARB, a division of California EPA) estimates this measure will remove almost 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2020. The measure (09-41) approved last June 25, 2009 is now in a 15-day comment period on the draft regulation (i.e. the proposed law) which is expected to be phased-in with 2012 cars and fully functional by 2016.

With solar energy of roughly 600 watts falling on each square meter, we all know how hot the interior of a parked car be. The measure should reduce the temperature by more than 10 degrees (Fahrenheit) 2016 model year cars.

Under AB32, CARB is responsible for determining policies to achieve AB32 (reducing GHG to 1990 levels by 2020). A list of CARB's plans, by economic sector, is here; "Cool Cars" is under Transportation.

CARB issued a Scoping Plan in December 2008 and in addition identified numerous "discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction measures” - the lowest hanging fruit (more details). An example of "discrete early action" is ruling on do-it-yourself mobile air conditioning fluids, which took effect this past January 1.

What's not in "Cool Cars"?

Regulations, as I am learning, seem a bit like old-fashioned pin-ball machines. Ideas come and go, dates change and the actual path, like the pinball, can not be predicted.

The measure started as "Cool Paints", meaning the use of special paint coatings to increase the reflection of solar energy. Perhaps we'll see that in the future. For now, you can still buy a black car.


How to Participate http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/decisions.htm

Current Draft of Cool Cars
draft regulation

FAQs
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf

ARB|CC|Cool-Cars
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-cars/cool-cars.htm

Other thoughts on regulations
http://envsissue.blogspot.com/2009/11/californias-cool-cars.html

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

California and China -1

Not too many people know that Oakland, a port city, is a sister city with Dalian, China's 3rd largest port.
[Dalian (near Korea) is located quite close to where Japan destroyed the Russian fleet in 1905 at what was called Port Arthur, the northern most ice-free, strategically important port in what was then Manchuria. Today, Dalian is home to 4-5 MM people, the site of major new Intel fab plant, plus a major software park with tenants like IBM, HP, British Telecom, Citibank and with ambitious plans to compete with Bangalore. ]

Likewise, not too many people know that California and Jiangsu Province, 1 hour west of Shanghai, are also sisters.
[Nanjing, site of mass killings during WWII and once China's capital, is Jiangsu's capital and Suzhou is known for silk products, canals, and gardens. "Heaven is above, but on earth there is Suzhou and Hangzhou," another nearby city.] Suzhou is now known more for booming Singapore-Suzhou industrial park, home to companies like Delphi, AMD, cosmetics and, unfortunately, polluted canals. More on Jiangsu.

I know a bit about Suzhou because when I had just arrived in China, a complete greenhorn, a new Chinese friend took me on a bicycle trip - past the unversity, past the endless crowds, road building, dust and construction cranes, past the relatively tranquil, orderly industrial park and finally to a lake on the city's edge. To her, this was a nature break from a hot, noisy, teaming city to a place where you could see the (polluted) sky. To me, it reminicent of teenage bicycle rides to the New Jersey meadowlands, on 'oasis' of tall weeds, with unfettered polluted swamps, surrounded industrial New Jersey but yes, you could also see "sky."

At the very edge of Suzhou, by a lake, on a bicycle, in 2003, I began to count the high voltage lines converging, from every direction. "Power - a lot of power," it looked like industrial New Jersey.

Just a few months later in southeastern China, I talked to a Hong Kong businessman whose mainland factory had closed for the day. "There is no electricity." In 2003, like a thin hyper-active teenager, China could not seem to get enough power.

China - always a paradox to westerners - is a country in vast transition, a place where you can see "all the continents - the best of North America and Europe in parts of Shanghai; and the poverty of Africa in the countryside". China is filled with energy efficiency ( no kitchen ovens, wearing coats in-door, bicycles, "sun-dried" clothing, ubiquitous elevator-free 7 story residential buildings, almost no "to go" food, hot water "only on demand" systems) and energy inefficiency (buses belching clouds of black smoke, cold or unheated libraries and classrooms where students insist on an open window for "fresh air", insulation so poor that "To heat up your room in Shanghai, you first need to heat up all of Shanghai" and new portable electric heaters, crumpling State Owned Enterprises in need of captial, technology and new ideas, kept alive solely to prevent thousands from becoming unemployed.)

The "new China" began in 1949. What we see now is the "new, new China"; one which changes daily and a generation is 5 years. A place where for decades but 1 bridge spanned a river, now adjacent to one or even two new ones simultaneously under construction.

"We don't have time to plan everything. We have to build a new building as fast as we can; and then we must build another one - right away. We are behind and we need to catchup, " one Government official told me.

Just as California has led the way in US efficiency, with policies to keep electricity use per capita flat or to reduce automobile pollution, so too California has lead the way in engaging China.

In following posts, I will attempt to outline some of groups working with China and write about California's October 2009 agreement with Jiangsu Province, an important "sub-national" agreement. Universities or NGOs like the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) or NGO Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have been in China for years and done extraordinary work below the 'radar screen.'

I also want to follow developments at the national level: China-US Energy Clean Energy Council (CERC), announced during President Obama's Beijing visit in November, 2009. And along the way, I want to try to answer the question, "Why help China with energy and energy-efficiency?", which I believe is very important that Americans consider.

Friday, December 18, 2009

CaliforniaFirst - Financing Efficiency/Solar

The Santa Cruz Sentinel published an article this past week about Santa Cruz County's plan to join a financing district. Here is my letter to the reporter, Kurtis Alexander.

Hi Kurtis:
cc: Allison Endert, Board of Supervisors

From what I know about municipal financed district for solar/energy efficiency is a good idea. Certainly has worked elsewhere.

Still, I have questions that neither the Board of Supervisors nor Commission on the Environment would answer.

I posted these questions on Sentinel website (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_14003041) and below.

But (3) is a topic I have many concerns about, as you probably know. I'm afraid it's often a bit beyond my ability to discern which hat an individual is wearing at given moment. 45.1 51
[Full disclosure: I have sent the District Attorney two complaints re: COE about Brown Act, Conflicts-of-Interest].

I hope you'll report on the the contract for managing the energy efficiency/solar program and then monitor compliance. As I think we all agree, it is very important for the public to have all the information it needs to make decisions. Likewise, public and private interests must never be confused.

FYI, as you may know, the County spent 19 months with funding to do a mobile GHG emissions study and, from what people have told me, did "nothing." Ecology Action is on that contract. I have asked the County how many other contracts are "languishing." This is another area I hope you will consider writing about.

I have gotten no answer from the Board of Supervisors.

==
All in favor of more solar, efficiency cost savings etc. but I hope to clarify some things in my mind:

(1) Market need?
Given the dropping solar panel prices, loans now on the market, the PG&E savings now, etc., how many ADDITIONAL homeowners be motivated to act? Has anyone estimated the EXTRA energy/electricity and CO2 reduction this program will achieve vs. with out it? (If so, I haven't seen.) Because I want to compare that to the cost to taxpayers.(i.e. cost/benefit)

(2) Efficiency 1st?
Before installing new hardware, how does this program ensure that homeowners do PG&E audits, "cool roofs", insulation, think efficiency - preferably, right now?

(3) Program Mgmt
Again, all in favor of jobs. But we also want to stimulate a new industry (renewables) and sustainable real job growth - not just rely on Government handouts.

I am curious about the final statement.
"Santa Cruz County-based Ecology Action is leading the statewide push for the money. Executive Director Virginia Johnson says the proposal is compelling and the chances are good."

Is private Ecology Action just being a good citizen cheerleader or have an undisclosed financial interest we should know about?

By the way, I did ask County's Commission on the Environment these questions, but never got an answer.