If $4.00 for a gallon gasoline is pinching your checkbook, just wait until you see your electric and natural gas bills in the coming year.

California gets 42 percent of its electricity from natural gas.  Many homes also use natural gas for heating, cooking, and hot water.  Natural gas prices increased 45 percent in the past year.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that gas costs may double soon. 

Gas and coal power 70 percent of America’s grid.  Coal prices have already doubled, following demand and oil price increases.  This has caused electrical rate increases across the nation.  Virginia is looking at a 29 percent rate increase this summer.  Oregon saw a 10 percent rate increase last year with another 9 percent by next January.  Maryland residents will see their electric bills rise almost 8 percent in June, increasing home electric costs by $137 a year to $1,800 annually.  Maryland’s commercial customers can expect rate hikes of 27 percent to 41 percent price by the summer.

Higher costs boost conservation efforts as consumers and business cut back and become more efficient users of energy.  In addition, government mandates and subsidies boost conservation efforts, albeit unevenly and without the efficiencies of the market. 

Conservation alone is not enough, however.  As our population and economy grows, we use more energy.  Further, the growing economies of China, India and others will continue to put great pressure on world supplies of oil and gas, keeping world prices on a constant upward ramp.  This means that conservation at home will do little to moderate energy prices as the cost of energy is determined by a global market.  Americans should conserve when it makes sense to do so – but we should not confuse conservation by itself with a comprehensive energy policy. 

California is especially vulnerable to natural gas price hikes since we get a plurality of our electricity from burning gas.  Accounting for the fixed costs of power generation and distribution, this means we could be looking at a 20-30 percent increase in electrical costs in the near future. 

Increased use of wind power can actually increase our dependence on natural gas since wind needs to be backed up by large natural gas power plants.  Solar can help offset peak energy demand on hot days, but it is still as costly as natural gas and some five to ten times more costly than coal, hydro, or nuclear power. 

Adding to California’s dire energy picture is our current policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 12 years, and another 80 percent on top of that by 2050 (returning per capita emissions to levels not seen since wood-burning Colonial days).   A just completed federal study on the effects of the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, a national version of California’s AB 32 greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, showed it would add costs of $723 costs per household by 2030.  That’s $723 more than whatever the higher costs for energy will add to the family budget. 

It is growing more apparent by the month that turning to modern nuclear power is the only way we can realistically address the twin challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our reliance on imported oil and natural gas.  While California continues to dally on the energy front, making a false hope that somehow wind, solar, and conservation can do it all, other states are moving ahead.  There are new nuclear power plants starting the licensing process in Maryland and Texas with bipartisan legislation looking at nuclear power in Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois and other states.  Ohio’s Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, just signed a bill that requires electric utilities to generate 25 percent of their energy by 2025 through renewable energy including new nuclear reactors.

People often ask: I want to get greener, what should I do? New light bulbs? A hybrid? A solar roof? Well, all of those things are helpful. But actually, the greenest thing you can do is this: Choose the right leaders. It is so much more important to change your leaders than change your light bulbs.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page »

Why? Because leaders write the rules, set the standards and offer the tax incentives that drive market behavior across a whole city, state or country. Whatever any of us does individually matters a tiny bit. But when leaders change the rules, you get scale change across the whole marketplace. And the energy-climate challenge we face today is a huge scale problem. Without scale, all you have is a green hobby.

Have no illusions, everything George Bush wouldn’t do on energy after 9/11 — his resisting improved mileage for cars and actually trying to weaken air-conditioner standards — swamped any good works you did. Fortunately, the vacuum in the White House is being filled by leaders from below.

Take the New York City taxi story. Two years ago, David Yassky, a City Council member, sat down with one of his backers, Jack Hidary, a technology entrepreneur, to brainstorm about how to make New York City greener — at scale. For starters, they checked with the Taxi and Limousine Commission to see what it would take to replace the old gas-guzzling Crown Victoria yellow cabs, which get around 10 miles a gallon, with better-mileage, low-emission hybrids. Great idea, only it turned out to be illegal, thanks to some old size regulations designed to favor Crown Vics.

Recalled Mr. Hidary: “When they first told me, I said, ‘Are you serious? Illegal?’” So he formed a nonprofit called SmartTransportation.org to help Mr. Yassky lobby the City Council to change the laws to permit hybrid taxis. They also reframed it as a health issue, with the help of Louise Vetter, president of the American Lung Association of the City of New York.

“New York City has among the dirtiest air in the U.S.,” Ms. Vetter said. “When it comes to ozone and particulate matter, New Yorkers are breathing very unhealthy air. Most of it is tailpipe emissions. And in New York City, where asthma rates are among the highest in the nation, the high ozone levels create very serious threats, especially for kids who spend a lot of time outdoors. Converting cabs from yellow to green would be a great gift to the city’s children.”

Matt Daus, who heads the taxi commission, which is independent of the mayor, was initially reluctant, but once he learned of the health and other benefits, he joined forces with Messrs. Yassky and Hidary, and the measure passed the City Council by 50 to 0 on June 30, 2005. Since then, more than 500 taxi drivers have converted to hybrids — mostly Ford Escapes, but also Toyota Highlanders and Priuses, and others.

On May 22, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the greenest mayors in America, decided to push even further, insisting on a new rule, which the taxi commission has to approve, that will not just permit but require all cabs — 13,000 in all — to be hybrids or other low-emission vehicles that get at least 30 miles a gallon, within five years.

“When it comes to health and safety and environmental issues, government should be setting standards,” the mayor said. “What you need are leaders who are willing to push for standards that are in society’s long-term interest.” When the citizens see the progress, Mr. Bloomberg added, “then they start to lead.” And this encourages leaders to seek even higher standards.

I asked Evgeny Freidman, a top New York City fleet operator, how he liked the hybrids: “Absolutely fabulous! We started out with 18, and now we have over 200, mostly Ford Escapes. Now we only put hybrids out there. The drivers are demanding them and the public is demanding them. It has been great economically. With gas prices as they are, the drivers are saving $30 dollars a shift.” He said drivers who were getting 7 to 10 miles a gallon from their Crown Vics were getting 25 to 30 from their hybrids. The cost of shifting to these hybrids, he added, has not been onerous.

Now Mr. Hidary is trying to get law firms and investment banks, which use gas-guzzling Town Cars — 12,000 in the city — to demand hybrid sedans only.

This is how scale change happens. When the Big Apple becomes the Green Apple, and 40 million tourists come through every year and take at least one hybrid cab ride, they’ll go back home and ask their leaders, “Why don’t we have hybrid cabs?”

So if you want to be a green college kid or a green adult, don’t fool yourself: You can change lights. You can change cars. But if you don’t change leaders, your actions are nothing more than an expression of, as Dick Cheney would say, “personal virtue.”

Dumb as We Wanna Be

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

Related

Go to Columnist Page »

Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

By Jared Blumenfeld - Special to The Bee

Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, April 27, 2008
Story appeared in FORUM section, Page E5

Print | E-Mail | Comments (1) | addthis_pub = 'sacbee'; addthis_offset_left = -2;

When it comes to global warming, the future is rapidly approaching. Electricity generation and distribution produces 40 percent of all the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

Despite a great deal of talk about climate change, the electric power industry's nationwide CO2 emissions have risen 5.9 percent since 2002 and a whopping 11.7 percent since 1997. We need energy solutions – and we need them now.

California has taken the bold step of requiring that 20 percent of all our electricity come from renewable sources by 2010 and is now looking at increasing that target to 33 percent renewable energy mix by 2030. This is excellent news. However, the grid that transports energy is itself part of the problem.

In the last two decades our society has been transformed by the processing power of computers and yet the energy-delivery system that feeds these technologies has not been modernized since its inception a century ago. Instead, more and more demand has been thrust upon an antiquated electrical grid. Today, 10 percent or more of all electricity distributed by utilities is lost from grid inefficiency – never reaching the consumer. It's like trying to run your iTunes software off the Commodore 64 in the garage. At some point you need to upgrade.

Information and communications technologies are becoming an essential driver of productivity improvements and innovation for the 21st century that will enable green innovations in buildings, energy production and use, and transportation.

Potential rewards of investing in real-time communications are significant. For example, a recent study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy demonstrated significant results from new "smart grid" technologies to monitor and adjust home energy consumption, reducing average household consumption by 10 percent. Proactive management of home energy use by consumers using this technology could reduce peak loads on utility grids up to 15 percent annually. In addition, the grid itself can be optimized to reduce overall power consumption by several percent without any change in consumer behavior.

The Electric Power Research Institute has defined a smart grid as "a power system that can incorporate millions of sensors all connected through an advanced communication and data acquisition system." This real-time analysis will enable predictive responses allowing utilities to "manage their load." Thus only electricity that is needed will be generated and distributed.

As more of us put solar panels on our homes and businesses, a smart grid is needed so the utility can integrate these renewable resources into the electric grid. Customers could be rewarded for producing renewable energy when it is most needed, or encouraged to reduce consumption at times when renewable energy supply is low, saving both costs and environmental impact. These types of integrated solutions can reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity grid by up to 25 percent. If precise, real-time management of the electricity load were in place, it could even eliminate the need for the controversial practice of utilities firing up costly, dirty peaker plants.

In a similar manner, as plug-in hybrid vehicles become more available (San Francisco just received its first three) a smart grid will help drivers charge their cars when energy is cheap and then be able to transfer excess energy back onto the electricity grid at peak hours (at a profit).

During the 2006 heat wave in California, hundreds of transformers failed. The outage affected about 80,000 customers over six days. Smart-grid technology would help utilities monitor key pieces of equipment such as transformers and provide the capability to take proactive action such as reducing load to prevent failures. It would also speed restoration of service by detecting outages and their underlying causes. This system of constant monitoring would allow proactive action to reduce the likelihood and impact of blackouts.

By making the electric grid just 5 percent more efficient nationwide, we would prevent emission of more than 275 million tons of CO2. This equates to taking 42 large coal-fired power plants off line, or 53 million cars off the road – forever.

Not surprisingly, the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed into law five months ago sets the implementation of a smart grid as the policy of the United States. And yet, California's three largest utilities – PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – are about to spend $4.2 billion to install meters with limited communications capabilities that are not compatible with the requirements of a smart grid.

California urgently needs to adopt a policy that requires any new meter and communications network installed to be capable of the two-way, real-time communications necessary for the smart grid. Otherwise, we will be wasting money on old technologies and foreclosing the possibility of a smart grid in California for the next decade.

Texas, Ohio, Maryland, Spain, Italy and Brazil were not cradles of the Internet or renewable energy, but they are all deploying smart- grid networks today. Combating climate change will require investing in infrastructure. A smart grid platform is a critical next step in getting to a more sustainable future. California cannot afford to be left in the dark.

By ASHLEY SMITH Telegraph Staff
asmith@nashuatelegraph.com

SALEM – National Grid, one of the largest energy companies that serve New Hampshire, announced it will increase rates for natural gas and electricity beginning Thursday.

The average customer who uses both will end up spending about an extra $25 a month on energy bills, following the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission's approval of the increases last month.

The typical residential electric customer will see an increase of $12.47 a month, or 17.3 percent, from $72.11 to $84.58. That estimate assumes the average customer uses 500 kilowatt-hours a month.

The average residential gas customer's monthly bill will increase by $12, or 13.3 percent, from $160 to $172, according to a statement from National Grid, which completed the acquisition of gas company KeySpan in August.

National Grid is the largest distributor of natural gas in the Northeast. In New Hampshire, the company has about 84,000 natural gas customers and 40,000 electric customers.

The company attributes the need for rate increases to a worldwide increase in energy costs. electricity for residential customers, but purchases it every six months from the lowest bidder.

The company said in a statement that it doesn't profit from the market-driven increases in energy prices and is looking for ways to lock in long-range natural gas pricing when costs go down.

National Grid encourages natural gas customers who are concerned about saving energy and lowering bills to visit www.keyspansaves.com or www.energysavers.gov for tips and rebate information.

Those with serious financial concerns may be eligible for National Grid's fuel assistance program, or the fuel assistance program sponsored by their local community action agency. The agency for Greater Nashua, which also offers electric assistance, is Southern New Hampshire Services. The phone number is 889-3440.

Electric customers looking for information or payment assistance can visit www.nationalgridus.com/granitestate.

Ashley Smith can be reached at 594-6446 or asmith@nashuatelegraph.com.

Coalition calls for 'solar continent'

AUSTRALIA must invest far more heavily in solar power, including it as a mainstream energy source in the national grid, Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt has said.

In a speech to be delivered to a climate change conference today, Mr Hunt will spell out the Coalition's vision for a "solar continent", in which the energy source could be stored and sold on the market like coal-generated, baseload power.

"In short, we want to set Australia on a path to being a country where everyone willing to invest is within reach of running a solar home," Mr Hunt will tell the two-day Climate Action Network Australia Conference in Sydney.

This would include a national feed-in tariff - a guaranteed rate of pay for solar electricity fed back into the grid by small solar generators, including private households.

To date, South Australia and Queensland have approved solar feed-in tariffs that guarantee 44c per KWH of solar energy, but the Coalition wants a truly national scheme.

Mr Hunt said the Coalition's solar strategy had two broad components - increased use of solar photovoltaic power to boost short-term peaking capacity and solar baseload power generated by solar concentrators.

He argues solar energy using photovoltaic panels offers the best and most efficient means of providing zero-emissions energy during periods of peak power use.

"In this context, we want to set a clear policy direction of substantially increasing the take-up of Solar PV throughout Australia," he says. And more should be done to encourage the use of solar hot water heaters in both homes and schools. Currently solar heaters are used by only one in 20 Australian homes.

Realising the solar vision would mean the development of baseload power providing storage and conversion capabilities, Mr Hunt told The Australian.

"I think that the technology has moved in the last two years. The big move is that globally you are beginning to see storage. There's now no doubt in my mind that it will be a technically viable baseload energy form over time."

If Australia can do it, why can't the US.  The United States can't even pass simple tax credits to keep the solar industry alive.  The reason, tax breaks for big oil.  The US would rather provide tax breaks to Oil companies rather than investing in our future. 

What does this mean to you?  Well, the first time an unlicensed contractor gets caught in a Contractors State License Board sting, they may go out of business.  You won't have any one to call when your system breaks down.  Your warranty will be worthless.

There are a few examples of companies that don't list a contractors license on the front page of their website in the San Diego area.

Note:  I'm not listing the names of unlicensed contractors any longer as one of them has objected.  They called me up and asked me to remove their name from the  list.  When confronted with unlicensed contracting activity, they claim that they are just solar consultants.  Here is what the Contractors State License board says about this:

Licensing Requirements. A number of companies have entered the photovoltaic market as “sales companies, integrators, or solar leasing companies.” It is important to check with the Contractors’ State License Board to determine if these businesses are required to hold a State Contractors’ License (www.cslb.ca.gov). Current law (Business and Professions Code) states:

“7026.1. The term "contractor" includes all of the following:
  
   (b) Any person, consultant to an owner-builder, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or company, who or which undertakes, offers to undertake, purports to have the capacity to undertake, or submits a bid, to construct any building or home improvement project, or part thereof.

7027.1.  (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person to advertise for construction or work of improvement covered by this chapter unless that person holds a valid license under this chapter in the classification so advertised, except that a licensed building or engineering contractor may advertise as a general contractor.
   (b) "Advertise," as used in this section, includes, but not by way of limitation, the issuance of any card, sign, or device to any person, the causing, permitting, or allowing of any sign or marking on or in any building or structure, or in any newspaper, magazine, or by airwave or any electronic transmission, or in any directory under a listing for construction or work of improvement covered by this chapter, with or without any limiting qualifications.
   (c) A violation of this section is punishable by a fine of not less than seven hundred dollars ($700) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), which fine shall be in addition to any other punishment imposed for a violation of this section.
   (d) If upon investigation, the registrar has probable cause to believe that an unlicensed individual is in violation of this section, the registrar may issue a citation pursuant to Section 7028.7 or 7099.10.

7027.2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any person not licensed pursuant to this chapter may advertise for construction work or work of improvement covered by this chapter, provided that he or she shall state in the advertisement that he or she is not licensed under this chapter.

7027.3. Any person, licensed or unlicensed, who willfully and intentionally uses, with intent to defraud, a contractor's license number that does not correspond to the number on a currently valid contractor's license held by that person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in state prison, or in county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.  The penalty provided by this section is cumulative to the penalties available under all other laws of this state.  If, upon investigation, the registrar has probable cause to believe that an unlicensed individual is in violation of this section, the registrar may issue a citation pursuant to Section 7028.7.

I am sure that there are many more, but it is difficult to contract without a license for very long.  These companies can't get permits from the local building authority so they have to hire a subcontractor to get the permits.  Unlicensed contractors can't hire a subcontractor without breaking the law. Eventually, the CSLB will step in.  If you contract with an unlicensed contractor, are you at risk.  Should a worker fall off the roof and there is not general liability insurance or workmans comp., you will pay the bill.

Some of our customers want to run the air conditioner so cool that they can see their breath, but they don't want their friends and family to think they are energy hogs.  Solar electricity is a great way to maintain or improve you lifestyle and you can feel good about it. 

The Chula Vista City Council recently adopted an aggressive approach to fighting global warming, pledging to become the first municipality in the county with “green” building standards for all new construction and major renovations.

A major portion of this was to provide a program to help businesses install solar electric equipment.  What they don't tell you that the last permit fee we paid in Chula Vista was around $1500.  We also were required to get a business license of around $50.  In comparison, Mission Viejo has waived solar permit fees and does not require a business license.

Additionally, Chula  Vista has some of the most complex solar permit requirements in Southern California.  Our company works in over 70 cities in Southern California and in most of them, we use a standard permit package that is usually approved within a couple of days...except in Chula Vista.

Here are the Chula Vista requirements:

This list does not include their new requirement from the fire department that modules be quick disconnect.  None of the major racking manufacturers currently supply listed, engineering quick disconnect features so this is an obstacle that is very controversial.

Congratulations to Villa Park, California