« Climate Change »

This is just silly.
1. California has a more clement climate than most of the other states and therefore has relatively smaller heating and cooling demands than say Michigan.
2. California also has a large population which is generally concentrated in urban areas which reduces infrastructure costs. You don't have to travel 30 miles to get to town like in Montana (say).
3. California imports a lot of electricity.

I guess I do not understand the point of the comment and the graph.

The comment says, "California's greenhouse-gas emissions per person are on a par with those of Denmark. Relative to the size of its economy, they are lower."

However, the plot shows electricity consumption per person.

Additionally, the categories of which states voted for which political party, are useless.

The comparison of California to Denmark is interesting but it of course raises a bunch of questions on how the amount of Greenhouse gasses were calculated.

Does this include power generated outside CA and imported? (Not insignificant)
Does it prorate the manufacturing of things imported? You could say that California exports a lot of CO2 production.

In any case it does raise a point though - even given the limitations where are the big producers in the US? If these rates are anywhere near true then to me all the statistics saying the US has very much more CO2 emission than Europe must be wrong.
How is that calculated?

Jeff and Dan- Lte be more explicit. If your emissions and energy use is lower than others, they you will be at a competitive advantage if energy costs increase (e.g., under policies that put a costs on emissions or energy use). Similarly, if you emissions/energy use is constant or declining, then you will be more inclined to accept caps or costs than those with increasing energy use and emissions.

The difference between red and blue states is stark and meaningful.

Thanks!

But Roger, the plot says it is 'electricity consumption per person', not CO2 emissions per person. Electricity consumption per person does not measure CO2 emissions per person. Let's take France and Quebec, for examples.

Northern CA electricity is hydro-electric based ( and not necessarily CA hydro-electric, certainly some is BPA from outside CA).

Some electricity for Los Angeles is coal-fired electric, Utah-based. Utah will pass all new costs onto its customers in CA.

I can get, or point to, actual numbers if pressed.

It sounds like we should be looking at emissions per employee from sources that produce jobs. But even that is probably more a measure of the types of employment than a measure of actual 'efficiency'. And we have to account for leakage. Plus we probably need some kind of weighting to measure CO2 sources from necessities; like food from the great plains (which are mostly Red).

The plot and associated comment are the very definition of apples and oranges.

Dan- Fair points, and such further data would be useful. But the point is that a lower use of electricity per person will equate to a lower per captia cost increase if the cost of electricity increases. Hence, it is easy to understand why California residents might be more bullish on policies that increase the costs of energy than others who pay/use more. Thanks!

Roger,
Lower use of electricity per person in California may result in lower per capita costs to California residents if the cost of electricity increases. But it might not.

Californians could still be walloped if they buy things manufactured and taxed in other states (or countries). For example, maybe Mississipi uses more electricity than CA because Alcoa's bottle cap factory is located in MS. If we tax electricity, those costs will be passed on to CA through higher prices for beverages in bottles.

I can see where Californians might imagine they are going to escape these costs because bottle cap factories in MS will close and then reopen in China which may impose no tax. But in this case, Californians may be surprised to discover the cost of shipping bottle caps from China and distributing them to American bottling factories is not zero-- so Californias still pay more.

And needless to say, bottle caps are an example. Manufacturing tends to be energy intensive. Consumers in all states will pay these prices in the form of more expensive aluminum foil, plastic containers, carpeting, food etc. (I don't necessarily think that means we shouldn't tax energy. I'm just saying that the cost of electricity consumed in one state will affect the cost of goods in another state.)

Oh well, I live in a blue state with lots of nuclear power plants, so I guess I should be for a carbon tax, right?

Roger, I would accuse you of jumping straight from a presentation of the facts to the conclusion, except you don't seem to have a conclusion.

Mark- Apologies, I thought that the conclusion was obvious (apparently not!) ... to repeat:

If your emissions and energy use is lower than others, they you will be at a competitive advantage if energy costs increase (e.g., under policies that put a costs on emissions or energy use). Similarly, if you emissions/energy use is constant or declining, then you will be more inclined to accept caps or costs than those with increasing energy use and emissions.

The difference between red and blue states is stark and meaningful.

Thanks Roger, I too find this comparison stark and meaningful. I similarly find stark the reflexive denialism of some people.

more stark and meaningful (and to answer the first comment directly) is that CA has kept per-cap consumption flat (slightly declining) for 30 years while in red states it has steadily increased (and increased faster than blue states). Since the early 1970's CA has gone in one direction while the rest of the country has gone in another (and surprise surprise, they still have the strongest economy of the 50 states). Guess who is better positioned for the future?

Yes, I use precisely this graph in my class on Global Change, in a unit on energy use patterns. It demonstrates that policies like those that California has adopted to reduce energy consumption don't necessarily harm the economy, as many seem to reflexively assume. Many argue that these policies have actually enhanced California's economy, even in the absence of possible future increases in energy costs.

kevin v,
What metric are you using for claiming California has strongest economy of the 50 states? According to wikipedia, California was #13 in GDP per capita in 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal) California is also in a four-way tie with Louisiana and AZ and Georgia for the 13th highest unemployment rate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate)

kevin_v:

How much of California's per cap consumption behavior do you think is a result of active programs specifically aimed to reduce electricity usage and how much is due simply to its climate (mild), demographics (high household size, large percentage of population in urban areas) and other factors such as type of industries etc. that just sort of happened on their own and conspired to produce the trend (or lack thereof).

In other words, in your comment, you seem as if you are giving California credit for going "in one direction while the rest of the country has gone in another." I just wonder how much credit is due and how much is simply happenstance.

-Chip

The table on this page ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html ) shows that in 2004 CA had a net generating capacity of about 194.8 million megawatthours and total retail sales of about 252.8 million megawatthours. The state must have imported about 58 million megawatthours of electricity, or about 28.7 % of its generating capacity.

The major electricity source in CA is burning natural gas; a hydrocarbon-based fossil fuel. The fossil-fuel based electricity imported from Utah is from mine-mouth based coal-fired power plants. See this page for more info ( http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/112750.html ) where you'll find this statement, "Statewide, California relies on coal for about 20 percent of its electricity, nearly all of that imported from out of state."

Additionally if you go to the bottom of that table you can download really big tables that have more than enough info to make your eyeballs roll up inside your head.

In that table you will find the states ranked for electricity retail sales and CO2 emissions. The top five states in the difference between these ranks, along with listed major source are: Washington (hydro), New Jersey (nuclear), Oregon (hydro), New York (nuclear), and California (gas). And if we look at the next several we see: Idaho (hydro), Virginia (coal), South Carolina (nuclear), Massachusetts (gas), Mississippi (coal), Connecticut (nuclear) and Maryland (coal). Electricity consumption is not a measure of total CO2 emissions. The electricity base in Quebec is over 95 % hydro-electric. The electricity base in France is between 70% and 80% nuclear.

Red and Blue do not measure CO2 emissions; the energy source measures CO2 emissions.

More numbers on CO2 emissions to follow.

According to this table: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/CO2FFC_2003.xls available on this page: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state_energyco2inv.html
for state emission from fossil fuel combustion in 2003 in million metric tonnes CO2. This is not per capita

The top ten emission sources are: Texas total emissions leads with about 694.1, California total emissions is second with about 384.04, Pennsylvania total emissions third, Ohio total emissions is fourth, then the industrial sector of Texas is fifth, Florida total emissions is sixth, Indiana total emissions is seventh, the transportation sector of California is eighth, then Illinois total emissions is ninth, and the electric power sector of Texas is tenth.

Here's what I get for per capita total emissions for 2003 from lowest to highest:

1 DC 6.887
2 Idaho 10.342
3 Vermont 10.418
4 Rhode Island 10.528
5 California 10.823
6 New York 11.135
7 Oregon 11.299
8 Connecticut 12.017
9 Washington 13.010
10 Massachusetts 13.388
11 Florida 14.200
12 New Jersey 14.337
13 Maryland 14.395
14 Arizona 15.779
15 New Hampshire 15.819
16 Virginia 16.375
17 Hawaii 16.905
18 North Carolina 17.148
19 South Dakota 17.571
20 Maine 17.806
21 Illinois 17.910
22 Michigan 18.105
23 Wisconsin 18.860
24 Nevada 19.057
25 Georgia 19.129
26 South Carolina 19.225
27 Colorado 19.437
28 Minnesota 19.653
29 Delaware 20.257
30 Tennessee 20.788
31 Mississippi 21.529
32 Pennsylvania 21.562
33 Arkansas 22.548
34 Ohio 22.794
35 Missouri 23.769
36 Nebraska 24.366
37 Utah 25.988
38 Iowa 26.307
39 Kansas 28.394
40 Oklahoma 28.982
41 Alabama 29.986
42 New Mexico 30.348
43 Texas 31.380
44 Kentucky 34.358
45 Montana 35.516
46 Indiana 36.839
47 Louisiana 41.961
48 West Virginia 62.176
49 Alaska 67.369
50 North Dakota 73.726
51 Wyoming 125.209

I'll leave it to others to sort out the effects of Red and Blue. As well as all the other real-world factors that determine energy consumption and associated CO2 emissions.

Information is available to rank CO2 emissions per capita for all the states by the following sectors: (1) transportation, (2) commercial, (3) electric power, (4) industrial, and (5) residential. Electric power is only one source. And as we saw above in this thread, electricity consumption does not measure CO2 emissions. The energy source for power generation measures emissions.

"It demonstrates that policies like those that California has adopted to reduce energy consumption..."

I would be absolutely shocked if the "policies like those California has adopted to reduce energy consumption" make any difference at all.

The fact is that California has one of the mildest climates of the United States. They don't use a lot of air conditioning simply because they don't need it. See this site...and this site doesn't even take into account the fact that the relative humidity in Los Angeles is a tiny fraction of, say, Miami or Charleston, SC. (The air conditioning required simply to dehumidify the air in Miami or Charleston, SC are a significant fraction of the total load.)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762183.html

California has more people living in multi-family homes than average for the U.S. They have no heavy industry that uses significant electricity, such as electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities or primary aluminum smelters.

And they have some of the highest electricity prices in the U.S. See Figure 4:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html

In short, California is hardly a "model" to which the rest of the U.S. should aspire.

High electricity costs are one reason why people concerve in CA.

Every thing that people mention about why CA uses less electricity does not explain why the per capita usage has been constant. Only if there is a decrease in industy per capita, an increase in the proportion of multi-family homes, and a decrease in AC usage would that explain the constant per capata electricity usage (it would have to decrease enough to offset the increase use of electrical appliences and computers).

Finally the policies do make a big difference. When a city decides to replace its light bulbs with compact florecents and its stop lights with LEDs, that makes a difference. There have been a lot of government actions that decrease electrical usage that are not directed at the consumer. Most people I know are very energy concious

Mark Bahner said:
"I would be absolutely shocked if the 'policies like those California has adopted to reduce energy consumption' make any difference at all."

The factors you cite could explain an offset in per capita energy use, or maybe even a lower growth rate, but I don't think they can explain the actual history. In 1960, California per capita energy use was above the blue-state average, and barely distinguishable from the overall U.S. average. Today you see a divergence because for 30 years (coincident with adoption of policies which CEC claimed were for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency) there has been zero per-capita energy growth in California and positive growth elsewhere.

Best,
Scott

From the table mentioned above. CO2 emissions from electricity production in CA, from 1990 and until 2003, represent about 12 % of CA's total emissions. So to claim that electricity consumption per capita is a valid measure is nonsense.

Transportation emissions, no surprise here, represent the largest fraction by far; about 57%, and growing. Emissions from industrial sources are the next largest at about 20%.

Here's a table summary. I don't know how it will post. A plot of the numbers will show that as a function of time all the emission sources will both increase and decrease from year-to-year. There is a significant decrease in emissions from electricity from 2001 to 2002. It would be interesting to find out how that can happen.

Year
Transportation 201.52 190.49 190.06 187.26 195.71 199.49 202.54 196.95 197.52 202.25 213.24 209.02 220.76 227.69
% total 55.79 54.59 53.92 54.55 54.31 57.15 58.13 56.09 54.78 55.56 56.20 54.49 58.15 59.29
Industrial 71.47 72.64 72.83 70.28 70.50 69.26 71.91 76.85 74.28 72.24 72.05 74.01 74.13 70.63
% total 19.79 20.82 20.66 20.47 19.56 19.84 20.64 21.89 20.60 19.85 18.99 19.29 19.53 18.39
Electric Power 40.11 37.77 45.29 41.77 49.16 36.88 32.59 35.55 39.07 42.99 52.53 57.33 43.41 42.39
% total 11.10 10.82 12.85 12.17 13.64 10.56 9.35 10.12 10.84 11.81 13.85 14.94 11.44 11.04
Residential 29.44 29.25 27.17 28.75 29.31 26.71 26.89 26.67 32.22 31.88 27.49 28.59 27.71 28.06
% total 8.15 8.38 7.71 8.37 8.13 7.65 7.72 7.60 8.94 8.76 7.25 7.45 7.30 7.31
Commercial 18.67 18.78 17.16 15.26 15.66 16.74 14.52 15.12 17.45 14.63 14.11 14.65 13.60 15.26
% total 5.17 5.38 4.87 4.44 4.35 4.80 4.17 4.31 4.84 4.02 3.72 3.82 3.58 3.97
Emissions 361.21 348.92 352.51 343.32 360.34 349.09 348.45 351.16 360.55 364.00 379.42 383.60 379.61 384.04

You observe that the graph says a lot. That observation says a great deal more about your depth perception - or more accurately, lack thereof.

Someone who is interested in first in the science and not the politics might want to consider the nature of not only the local climate, energy import and export methods (as noted by other commenters), but factors such as the energy intensity of various types of manufacturing. In particular, it would seem useful to consider the geographical distribution of those industries that are, according to the Dept. of Energy, particularly energy intensive, such as petrochemical, steel, aluminum, mining, pulp & paper, etc.

Then also, as Dan Hughes alludes to, consider the nature of not only where electrical power is produced (vs. consumed), but the sources of energy used in its production - and the economic as well as environmental factors that might drive local utilities to employ one source vs another. Consider installed hydropower by state, as shown in Figure 8 here:

http://hydropower.inel.gov/hydrofacts/pdfs/a_study_of_united_states_hydroelectric_plant_ownership.pdf

Interesting to see where California fits on that chart - not to mention its neighbors to the north.
Bottom line: this post is inanely light with regards to technical issues, and heavy on politics (which sheds some light on the technical inanity).

DISCLOSURES:
1) I did not read the referenced paper, not wishing to pay the subscription fee.
2) My living is made by helping large industrial plants find ways to reduce energy consumption, and have worked in 43 of the 50 states. Personal anecdotal observation: Zero correlation between statewide political voting practices and operational efficiency.

Scott Saleska,

In 1960, how many people/companies owned air conditioners, color TVs, computers, microwaves, etc? What percentage of those were in Calififornia?

Dan Hughes commented: " There is a significant decrease in emissions from electricity from 2001 to 2002. It would be interesting to find out how that can happen."

I'm not sure. However, during the summer of 2001, CA had rolling blackouts and the Northwest had a drought. This limited the amount of non-CO2 generating hydropower available for sale from WA and OR. CA had to purchase a fair amount of power from other sources. The drought might have been over the following year.

In anycase, big swings in energy sources occurring bewteen early 2001 and late 2002 could be related to regulatory changes associated with the CA energy crisis.

margo,

Kevin is using GSP per state, not GSP per capita. Big difference.

Two words, the implications of which the Economist should be aware of when producing data analysis of this type:

"omitted variables"

Marlow,
I know there is a difference between GSP per state and per capita. Similarly, there is a big difference between electricity consumption per capita and total for the state.

If we are going to decree California green based on per capita measures, it would seem consistent to use per capita measures to gauge the economic strength. In anycase, if we are trying to diagnose the efficacy of a state's economic policies, it's not quite fair to decree that California's policies must be better than Rhode Island's simply because California is bigger.

Hi Scott,

I wrote, "I would be absolutely shocked if the 'policies like those California has adopted to reduce energy consumption' make any difference at all."

You replied, "The factors you cite could explain an offset in per capita energy use, or maybe even a lower growth rate, but I don't think they can explain the actual history. In 1960, California per capita energy use was above the blue-state average, and barely distinguishable from the overall U.S. average. Today you see a divergence because for 30 years (coincident with adoption of policies which CEC claimed were for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency) there has been zero per-capita energy growth in California and positive growth elsewhere."

Well, let's look at some possible reasons why this might be so (that have nothing to do with the California Energy Commission):

1) In the 1974-1978 time frame, California's per capita income was 1.16 times the U.S. average. By 2001 to 2004, California's per capita income had declined to 1.07 times the national average. In other words, the per-capita income in the rest of the U.S. has been growing faster than in California.

http://bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3§ion=2

2) In 2003, residential electricity rates in California were 3rd-highest in the nation, following only Hawaii and New York. What were electricity prices in California in 1975 compared to the rest of the nation? Were they also 3rd highest back in 1975?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html

Or did decisions made by Californians, like shutting down the 916 MWe Rancho Seco nuclear reactor in 1989, after only 12 years of operation, cause electricity rates to rise from somewhere near the national average to 3rd highest in the nation?

http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/North_America/usa/NRC_Facilities/Region_4/rancho_seco/index.shtml

3) At the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill today, every single dormitory room has a window air conditioner. When were those air conditioners added? I don’t know, but my guess would be that they weren’t added until the 1970s, at the earliest. (Or maybe even the 1980s.) Prior to 1970, adding such air conditioners to every single dorm room would have been far more luxurious than a state school in North Carolina could afford. In contrast, how many dorm rooms at U.C. Berkeley are air conditioned? None, I would guess. Because A/C is not needed in the middle of California. Similarly, every single house in my neighborhood in Durham, NC has central air conditioning. In 1970, I expect that less than half of the houses in upper-middle income neighborhoods in Durham had central A/C. In contrast, houses in San Francisco area for people with similar incomes probably don’t have central A/C, because they simply don’t need it. (Not to mention the fact that the average square footage of San Francisco houses are probably considerably less than in my neighborhood…or else they’d be costing $1+ million apiece.)

So once again, I don’t think the California Energy Commission has had any appreciable effect on residential electrical usage in California versus other states. I think the trends can be explained by entirely different factors.

Mark

Hi,

I'm too lazy to look much longer, but here's a webpage that says that window A/Cs were added to many rooms in Murphey Hall (Department of Classics classroom building) in 1975...right when the California Energy Commission was being formed! ;-)

http://www.fac.unc.edu/FacilityInfo/index.asp?lstNum=030&lstName=030&lstType=BUILDINGS&lstRegion=ALL&Fac=030&Cmd=Notes&1f=&1c=

Also, it appears that only some dormitories have window A/Cs (other dorms have central A/C). But my point still stands...I doubt the dorms with window A/Cs had them before the 1970s...or even 1980s.

Mark

Margo,

I agree with you completely and was merely pointing out the data that Kevin V. was likely referring to. Surprisingly, I actually agree with much of what M. Bahner is saying too. One needs to be careful not to assume virtue when there are clearly other factors at play. A better measure of consumer energy efficiency is probably residential electricity use that is somehow adjusted to reflect different climatological conditions (e.g. relative humidity, # of days below temp X, # of days below temp Y).

Having said all that, I think that Kevin and Roger are making a different point altogether -- namely that Californians are much more willing to embrace energy efficiency/conservation measures than other states (as demonstrated by zero growth in consumption) and that this puts them at an advantage relative to other states should similar measures be adopted across the U.S. Whether or not that holds true depends entirely on what kind of policies are put in place. Personally, I think a better indicator of competitive advantage in this context is the relative share of heavy industry (e.g. iron and steel) and manufacturing in the state. On this basis California fares well because of the relative absence of these industries.

Marlowe,
I agree with Roger's point about a states energy consumption pattern influencing whether they prefer energy taxes, cap and trade or no regulation etc.

If the US imposes energy taxes, states with energy intensive business do risk losing those businesses to countries where energy might not be taxed or regulated as much. (Possibly China or other countries exempted from Kyoto.)
California isn't harmed much if energy is taxed because they don't have lots of energy intensive local industries to lose.

So, yes, different states will prefer different methods to reduce GHG emissions.

However, I'm not entirely sure what Kevin_v's point was since he didn't actually give a lot of detail. I thought Kevin was suggesting that California's past energy policies didn't hamper California's economic growth over the last 30 years -- as evidenced by them having the strongest economy of the 50 states. And I was suspecting he was implying that imitating CA won't hamper the growth of other states.

But, while I agree California has the largest economy of all 50 states, I'm not sure I would call it "the strongest" economy. I'd also need Kevin to tell me a lot more before I concluded their energy policies didn't hamper their economy.

In anycase, even if I were to simply assume the CA energy policies didn't slow down CA's economy one bit, I'm not sure I'd assume similar policies wouldn't hurt the economies other states or the country as a whole. While California's mostly non-manufacturing economy survived their rolling blackouts, I think the economies of manufacturing intensive states might not survive.

Besides that, can the entire US economy really survive if we export all heavy industry? I suspect the country is too big to survive on fresh vegetables, software and CA wine alone!

So Californians have been managing along on an electricity use of 7000 kWh per head for the past 30 years. This suggests that the assumption in the IPCC's A1B emissions scenario that electricity consumption for the world as a whole will average 35,000 kWh per head in 2100 (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, p. 381) could be on the high side. If so, the Panel’s emissions projections for this scenario would also be inflated, as would be the related projections of “likely” temperature change (1.7 – 4.4 deg. C) and of sea level rise (21– 48 cm) under this scenario (IPCC Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM-3).

All six of the IPCC emissions scenarios for which the temperature and sea level projections are tabulated in SPM-3 assume that electricity consumption per head for the world as a whole will exceed the present Californian figure by 2100. This is true even of the A2 scenario, which assumes that the global population at end-century will be more than 15 billion. (According to a probabilistic assessment published in 2001 by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which produced the population projections used in the A2 scenario, there is only a 2.5% probability that world population will exceed 14.4 billion in 2100).

In its submission to the IPCC on the scope and structure of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (March 2003), the Australian Government argued that “Emissions scenarios form critical input to climate projections and are a major factor in estimating the possible magnitude and projected range of future warming”, and urged the Panel to “consider whether there are plausible emissions scenarios outside the range indicated in the SRES and if so, manage integration of such scenarios into the AR4 (for example, consider developing a further scenario with lower developing country growth than the B1 scenarios, but without the high population and slower rate of technology growth associated with the A2 and B2 scenarios).”

However, the IPCC decided in its wisdom not to proceed with this suggestion, declaring that ‘the SRES scenarios provide a credible and sound set of projections, appropriate for use in the AR4.’ Questions such as whether or not the Panel reduced the upper end of its range for sea level rise between the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports are of minor importance compared with the key issue of whether or not the higher emissions projections used in both Assessments are plausible.