Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Targeting Obesity Remains A Priority in Tough Budget Times
- Thousands Speak Out Against CA’s Costly and Broken Death Penalty
- Cuts Would Jeopardize Well-Being of Many Disabled Citizens
- Fully Fund Our Schools
- Same Governor, Different Goals
- Assemblymember Evans Sets the Record Straight
- Governor Proposes More Raids of Public Education Dollars
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
California Can Lead Nation in Green Tech Industry and Stimulate Economy With Bond Package

By Bill Lockyer
Treasurer
State of California
We must address climate change and its potentially destructive effects on our environment, our economy and society. Climate change is the direct result of global warming. There aren’t many Californians left who would disagree with that proposition.
To mitigate climate change we must curb the emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon-dioxide that are so rapidly accelerating global warming.
Our success in this effort will require more than curbing emissions from current activities. We also must also ensure that new activities in the public and private sector minimize and offset any emissions they create.
If we don’t act to reduce the environmental footprint of new public facilities, existing sources will have to reduce their emissions even further to compensate for increases caused by new sources.
I also want California’s green tech industry to be the nation’s leader. The genius of Californians’ creativity can make renewable energy more plentiful and affordable, and better our environment and quality of life.
That’s a big reason I’m proposing what I believe to be the largest investment in renewable energy technology, including solar energy, in our state’s history.
My plan calls for investing $3.5 billion in solar energy as part of a $5 billion bond package to green state government buildings, expand use of renewable energy, increase energy efficiency and spur innovation and cost-reduction in California’s green technology industry.
As a companion to this investment, I propose that the state operate a carbon credit bank to make it a constructive force in any market-based system to reduce global warming emissions under AB 32.
Together these proposals would make California a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, provide an economic stimulus through the bonds, and at the same time support environmental justice through the carbon bank.
First, the bonds:
The plan would cover facilities owned or operated by state agencies, the University of California and California State University. These state government facilities occupy 206.6 million square feet of space and rank among the state’s top energy users, spending more than $525 million annually on energy.
The Green Bonds would finance the purchase and installation in state buildings of solar technology, fuel cells and other renewable energy, and other measures to increase energy efficiency, reduce global warming emissions, cut costs and substantially cut state buildings’ reliance on the power grid. The plan would allow the state to produce an estimated 1,700 MW of increased energy efficiency and renewable energy.
• The $3.5 billion investment in solar installations would produce an estimated 450 megawatts (MW) of non-grid, renewable energy.
• $600 million would be dedicated to retrofitting and retro-commissioning state buildings. Based on informal numbers provided state officials in 2004, I believe a $600 million investment to increase efficiency by 40 percent will produce at least $863 million in savings over 10 years, and probably much more.
• Another $900 million would fund fuel cell installation, biofuels and other renewable technologies, generating an estimated150 MW of power.
Under this proposal, to the full extent permitted by law, California technology, California businesses and California workers would receive a preference in the program’s implementation.
This plan complements the strong action on global warming taken by our two state-government pension funds. CalPERS has invested more than $1.2 billion in green buildings, clean technologies and screening companies for compliance with environmental standards. CalSTRS, meanwhile, has put $425 million into a private equity program for “Clean Sector” investing and worldwide equities for sustainable investments.
State government can make an important contribution to the overall climate change effort while serving as a role model for others. If the state is calling on others to reduce climate change emissions, state government should live by the same rules.
California’s government must stop being a contributor to the problem of global warming and, instead, lead the way to a solution. Our ultimate goal should be reach the point where government buildings, in the aggregate, generate at least as much energy as they use. In other words, government should be “net-zero” on the energy consumption/generation scale. The Green Bonds plan aims to help us achieve that goal.
To help government reach the net-zero target, all new government facilities in California – state, cities, counties, schools and colleges – should be “carbon-neutral” by 2030. Carbon-neutral buildings would operate without using any fossil fuel energy sources, and would meet all their power needs with renewable sources. The Green Bonds will provide the investment resources to help us achieve that goal in stages:
New government buildings would use 60 percent less fossil-fuel energy by 2010, 70 percent less by 2015, 80 percent less by 2020, and 90 percent less by 2025. By 2030 state buildings would use no fossil-fuel energy.
This “carbon-neutral by 2030” goal for new buildings has been endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Institute of Architects, the U.S. Green Building Council and the Illinois State Legislature, among others. California government should embrace it, too.
We can do this. We know that a two percent, upfront investment to include green elements in new buildings produces energy and operational savings equal to 20 percent of total construction costs. So, if you spend $200,000 for green elements on a $10 million project, you save $2 million over 20 years. (California Sustainable Building Task Force, October 2003 report)
As for existing facilities, we must move aggressively to implement current rules to increase energy efficiency and expand renewable energy in government buildings.
There are currently 27 retro-commissioning projects underway or completed that will yield an 8 percent to 10 percent reduction in energy usage and corresponding green house gas emission reductions for each building.
The state is also retrofitting many older buildings to provide them with new energy efficient heating and cooling systems and mechanicals and with, upgraded energy management controls.
For example, at Napa State Hospital the department of mental health is retrofitting a 1.5 million square foot facility with new lighting systems, a new boiler and an energy management system (Department of Mental Health Energy Efficiency Forum, Power Point, 9-27-2006):
• The projected cost – $1.3 million.
• Project annual savings – $207,000
• Payback time – 6 years
This is one of a number of retrofit projects at state hospitals, installing energy efficient systems that will cut costs and offer quick payback on the investment. Other retrofitting projects are under way at a variety of other state facilities.
My proposal would provide the funding to dramatically expand this retrocomissioning and retrofitting effort. We must continue to set our sights higher. It’s time to make the investments needed to implement, and go beyond, what we already have on the books.
My green investment proposal is frugal. It will conserve resources, and contribute to a better quality of life the people of our state want and deserve. Bonds are the smart way to move government to the point on climate-change because they allow us to make the needed investments now, in today’s dollars, and ensure taxpayers and the environment reap the benefits sooner.
Taxpayers would save money because initial capital expenses would be far outweighed by the savings from energy efficiency and operating-cost reductions. And global warming emissions associated with buildings’ operations would drop, resulting in better air quality and improved public health. Additionally, the plan helps California businesses by ensuring the private sector does not bear a disproportionate, unfair burden as the state moves to meet mandated reductions in global warming emissions. State government will pull its own weight – and more.
One of the most important benefits of the California Green Bond program will be the nourishment it provides to California’s green economy. It will foster green technology advances in architecture, engineering and construction, and create jobs and prosperity by nurturing the green tech and renewable energy industries crucial to the long-term health of our state’s economy. And with the money they earn from bond-funded projects, solar companies will be able to make the investments needed to increase the supply of solar energy in the private sector. That will reduce consumer costs for homeowners and businesses.
Meanwhile, in the effort to implement AB 32, most observers agree any system to reduce global warming emissions ultimately will include some mix of market-based approaches such as cap and trade and regulatory approaches.
I’m among those observers.
If policymakers adopt a cap-and-trade system, the state should participate in that market. That’s why I’m proposing that, in any cap-and-trade system, the state should operate a Carbon Credit Bank.
The bank would hold in trust global warming emission credits attributable to government action, and participate in the market in a way that would benefit the environment, create jobs and generate business opportunities.
The bank’s emission credits would come from projects that receive tax-advantaged financing. They also would come from credits earned by state agencies, and credits deposited by local agencies, earned from global warming-friendly projects financed through tax-advantaged means.
The carbon bank would use the credits in a variety of ways:
• Sell them and use the proceeds to finance environmental cleanup projects in communities that suffer from acute pollution problems.
• Retire them. They could not be used again and, as a result, emissions would be reduced.
• Use them to back revenue bonds that would finance renewable energy and green projects, helping create jobs and economic opportunity.
• Provide them to businesses as an incentive to locate in California.
Here, a few points are worth mentioning.
Carbon emission trading already is happening around the world, with robust markets functioning in Europe and developing in the United States through the Chicago Climate Exchange and elsewhere. A number of California entities already are selling or plan to sell carbon offsets. And as carbon markets develop further, it’s quite likely the state will be in a position to develop offsets and hold carbon credits.
As banker for the state of California, the Treasurer’s Office would be a good place to hold credits that belong to the state. The State Treasurer’s Office already holds and manages assets on behalf of state and local governments through our Pooled Money Investment Account. Running a carbon credit bank would be a similar function.
My proposals for California Green bonds and for a workable, state-run carbon bank will expand the realm of what is possible in sustainable technologies. These investments will help make our state the cradle of green tech, just as it was for high tech. We can act now and invest today’s dollars in the resources it will take to stop the destructive march of climate change. Or we can pay a far higher price tomorrow to engage in a fight it may be too late to win.
Comments
Energy Independence begins with Energy efficiency - It's cheaper to save energy than to make energy..
Updated August 17, 2007
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R20
By Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the world’s most powerful. Energy is the basis of all this world’s wealth, and for perhaps earth’s entire history, the sun’s energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early humans did not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests. Without the continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial Revolution and no looming global catastrophe.
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects, replacement of appliances, motors, HVAC with the use of energy efficient materials-products, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, insulation, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
I believe what America needs are cool headed government leaders who understand how markets function and can work with consumers, voters and oil industry leaders to develop a viable energy strategy that will help and not hinder as our nation transitions to our new energy reality.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
August 16, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
"the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change."
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2
4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).
Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.
Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
The head of the U.S. government's renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing "embarrassingly few things" to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation's energy future. "I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen." What's needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,"
solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
Disenco Energy of the UK has announced it has reached important
milestones leading to full commercialization, such as the completion of
field trials for its home, micro combined heat and power plant (m-CHP).
The company expects to begin a product roll out in the second quarter of
2008.
Operating at over 90 percent efficiency, the m-CHP will be able to
provide 15 kilowatts of thermal energy (about 50,000 Btu’s) for heat and
hot water and generate 3 kilowatts of electricity. The m-CHP uses a
Stirling engine generator and would be a direct replacement for a home’s
boiler.
Running on piped-in natural gas the unit would create some independence
from the power grid, but still remain connected to the gas supply
network.
Whereas heat is supplied only when the generator is running (or
conversely electricity is generated only when heat is needed) a back-up
battery system and heavily insulated hot water storage tank seem
eventual options for more complete energy independence.
FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
"The government should serve as an example to its citizens"
A new innovative renewable energy generating technology is in development. The idea behind Promethean Power came from Matthew Orosz, an MIT graduate student who has worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in the African nation of Lesotho. Orosz wanted to provide electric power, refrigeration, and hot water to people without electricity. He and some MIT colleagues designed a set of mirrors that focus sunlight onto tubes filled with coolant. The hot coolant turns to pressurized vapor, which turns a turbine to make electricity. The leftover heat can be used to warm a tank of water and to run a refrigerator or an air conditioner, using a gas-absorption process that chills liquid ammonia by first heating it.
IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK
New Solar Electric Cells - 80% efficient
Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, ... Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. ...
A major increase in daily petroleum output is deemed essential to meet U.S. and international oil requirements in 2020, and so we should expect recurring oil shortages and price increases. Only by expediting the diminishing our day-to-day consumption of petroleum and implementing of efficiency and renewable energy policy can we hope to reduce our exposure to costly oil-supply disruptions and lower the risk of economic strangulation.
Quick Facts
Energy is vital to every sector of the U.S. economy. As our economy grows, the demand for energy rises.
Total energy consumption is projected to increase 35 percent by 2030.
Energy-efficiency improvements have played a major role in meeting national energy needs since the 1970s, relative to new supply.
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
Posted on: 08/20//2007
Posted by: YJ Draiman at August 20, 2007 09:49 AM
Our firm has been in the chilled water/heating water systems optimization business for the last 12 years. Our client base is nationwide ranging from MIT in Cambridge, Mass. to the University of Iowa to the University of California Davis Medical Center Sacramento. It is very encouraging to see that our state is taking a proactive approach to energy conservation utilizing existing technologies to achieve attractive rates of return on investment.
The most financially attractive energy conservaton opportunities are the retro commissioning/retrofit projects for which AB 32 is budgeting 600 million with an expected 840 million in energy savings over the next 10 years. Our experience indicates these type of system optimization projects when coupled with the proper scope of work and commissioning efforts will more likely have a return on investment of two to three years, hence we would encourage increasing the budget for this portion of the bill to take advanted of such an attractive rate of return on investment not discounting the parallel return on the carbon footprint reduction. For example, we recently completed a chilled water system optimization project for the University of Iowa, Hospital and Clinc buildings, approximately 2,500,000 million square feet of medical space. The cost of the optimization project was 1.9 million including soft costs and the recorded chilled water savings including performance penalty charge savings reflected a simple payback period of approximately 9 months.
You have our support for AB 32 and please feel free to contact us should you have any questions or if we could be of some assistance on these issues.
David A. Rogers, P.E.
Principal
R&A Engineering Solutions Inc.
Posted by: David A. Rogers, Mechanical Engineer at August 27, 2007 11:53 AM
To accelerate “IMPLEMENTATION of ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CONSERVATION, RENEWABLES and Reduction in the use of fossil fuels”.
The U.S. government can initiate an aggressive program to encourage and expedite these concepts, reduce demand by spurring a revolution in energy productivity initiating:
One promising idea is to make energy efficiency trade-able, much in the same way as we trade oil and natural gas, or, indeed, carbon emissions. A system making energy efficiency trade-able in the U.S. -- companies would be able to sell credits when they exceeded new standards -- would quickly reduce total energy consumption while limiting carbon emissions. Adding a market mechanism to trade efficiency gains would make energy efficiency standards more palatable to industries that have resisted them in the past and expedite implementation of energy efficiency and fuel efficiency. –
“Money makes the world go round”.
YJ Draiman, Energy analyst
8/31/2007
Posted by: YJ Draiman, Energy Consultant at August 30, 2007 07:05 PM
Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.
Chances are, as natural gas and oil prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily understandable projections on what the savings will be over the life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really happening to the cost of energy!
Here are some ideas I'd like to share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using solar to decrease your energy bill?"
There's something interesting I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates, the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).
Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle that says anything affixed to real estate becomes an integral part of the real estate. Once a solar package is installed, it immediately increases the value of a property. So how can you predict how much more a building will be worth in 5-10 years with a package as opposed to without one? In the real estate appraisal business, there are three approaches to appraising a property. The market approach (what are comparable properties selling for), the reproduction cost (the cost of creating an identical building at current construction and material prices) and the actual original cost adjusted for inflation. In all three methods, there's a strong case that a system installed today will make the building worth more today and in future years.
We need some realistic numbers to predict how much more a property will be worth in the years following installation. I believe that if you sell a building 5-10 years after installing solar, you should recoup all of your investment in the system plus an added bonus. If the rumors are true, a residential system (using the market approach) adds $20 of value to a home for every $1 it saves on the electric bill.
For commercial appraisals, you would divide the income (savings) by a cap rate (which was about 9% at last report). A system that saves $2000 a year then would be worth $40,000 on a home or $25,000 on a business. But if the cost of electricity goes up (if that is remotely possible), then wouldn't the value of the solar power system increase as well? In reality, we are not selling something that costs — we are actually offering a financial investment that grows comparably with other forms of energy.
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on. In commercial real estate, they use a "Cash Flow Analysis" form as the tool to evaluate a building's value using the income approach. We need a similar tool for putting a value on solar. If solar makes sense with this approach, then just think of how much better the systems look when you add the tax advantages!
This approach also applies to the cost of Energy efficiency implementation.
Reducing operational costs increases the value of the business and or property.
Compiled by Jay Draiman, Energy analyst
12/1/2007
Posted by: Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst at December 13, 2007 09:50 AM
Post a comment
Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 