Al Gore 2008, Part 3: Washington Post on California Energy
February 20th, 2007Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The Washington Post has an excellent article on California’s energy policies (Thanks BK!), which adds some context to our ongoing analysis explaining why Al Gore will be the next president of the United States. Here are several key excerpts:
Do 2004 Blue states in fact have higher energy costs?
The reason for California’s success is no secret: Electricity there is expensive, so people use less of it. Thanks to its use of pricey renewables and natural gas and its spurning of cheap coal, California’s rates are almost 13 cents a kilowatt hour, according to the Energy Information Administration. The other most-energy-frugal states, such as New Jersey and New Hampshire, charge about 12 cents and 14 cents a kilowatt hour, respectively. Hawaii, which relies on oil-fired plants, tops EIA’s list at about 21 cents.
“If the history of energy consumption in the U.S. has taught us anything, it is that cost drives conservation,” says Chris Cooper, executive director of the Network for New Energy Choices.
Three of the nation’s most profligate users of energy — Wyoming, Kentucky and Alabama — have one thing in common: low prices. Their electricity prices range from 5.25 cents a kilowatt hour to 7.06 cents, according to the EIA.
“What’s dirt cheap tends to get treated like dirt,” Rosenfeld says.
The District, also a wasteful user of energy, has a rate of 10.70 cents a kilowatt hour, only after recent rate increases. Virginia charges average 6.78 cents, and Maryland is at 10.03 cents.
Answer: Yes, consider:
CA, NJ, NH, HI, MD = Blue
WY, KY, VA, AL = Red
What are some of the effects of increasing energy prices?
Many manufacturers complain that the high electricity prices make the state an unappealing place to do business. Since 2001, California has lost 375,000 manufacturing jobs, a 19.9 percent drop that slightly exceeded the nationwide decline of 17 percent. Some firms — such as Buck Knives, with 250 jobs, or bottle manufacturer Bomatic, with 100 jobs — moved to states such as Idaho or Utah, where they said expenses, including energy, were lower.
Gino DiCaro, a spokesman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, says manufacturing investment is also “stalled” because of uncertainty about how the new legislation authorizing limits on greenhouse gases will affect energy costs.
“We’ve lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and we can’t replace them,” says DiCaro. While it’s hard to blame the state’s high energy costs alone, he says, “we know that . . . energy is one of the largest portions of a manufacturer’s operating budget.”
But at some point do high prices become a virtue?
But for those homeowners and businesses staying in California, the high prices have provided a big incentive for greater efficiency.
Laura Scher, chief executive of Working Assets, a wireless, long distance and credit card company that donates part of its revenue to socially progressive organizations, said she checked her home’s meter every week during the electricity crisis in the summer of 2001 and unplugged her family’s second refrigerator. “Part of it is our prices got really high,” she said. But she added that California’s habits go back much further. “It’s sort of a culture to be an energy conserver here,” she said.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:28 am
This sentence in the article is not an accurate characterization of the sources of electricity in California or of the reason the costs are so high;
“Thanks to its use of pricey renewables and natural gas and its spurning of cheap coal, California’s rates are almost 13 cents a kilowatt hour, according to the Energy Information Administration.”
We have already established that about 20% of the electricity consumed in California is generated by burning ‘cheap coal’ outside the state. For 2005 about 84% of the production of electricity inside California was by the combination of natural gas (about 47%), hydro (about 20%) and nuclear (about 18%). About 12% of the electricity produced inside the state is by ‘other renewables’; ‘other’ referring to other than hydro-electric. Thus renewables represent less than 12% of the electricity consumed.
So, it seems that (1) the ‘pricey’ renewables must be extremely so if less than 12% of consumption can actually dominate the total cost charged to the consumer, and (2) 20% of consumption by coal-based plants is not exactly, “… spurning of cheap coal …”, in my opinion.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:14 am
This received by email by someone wanting to remain unnamed:
—————————
OK, I’ll bite. I’m assuming Roger is running this as a provocative thought experiment. Al Gore isn’t going to win. That’s already done with for real-world reasons. The presidential primary race is already in full swing and he can’t raise enough money to compete. That’s already spoken for by the majors (Hillary, Edwards and Obabma) as well as talented campaign staff – if anyone will be a dark horse down the road it’ll be Richardson but the new primary schedule has virtually eliminated that possibility. Al Gore is damaged goods due to his crazy decision to run as a populist in ’00 and the fact that almost any democratic candidate can incorporate climate change as part of her/his platform. If Gore runs at all it’ll be as a younger, heavier Nader (and we’ll see how beloved he is then by his own party).
On another note, I’d have to disagree with how wedge issues have been defined as getting out the base. It may have morphed into that somewhat in one or two elections but that’s turned it on its head. Classic wedge issues force candidates and incumbents to take positions on issues that could hurt them if they adhere closely to principle or ideology (think partial birth
abortion and gun control on one side and stem cell research on the other).
You have to remember that constituents tend to have a low opinion of Congress but a high opinion of their own reps/senators; that tends to be b/c incumbents work to frame themselves one way and constituents tend not to be knowledgeable of their voting records etc. Majority control of wedge issues make them choose sides.
As far as evangelicals, it’s important to remember voters have multiple identities and are not monolithic. “Evangelical” is actually a big tent and a not insignificant number of evangelicals have certainly voted for and supported (or are now supporting) a higher minimum wage, aggressive climate change policies, and are against free trade—a lot of political consultants were caught by surprise on this. I’d even argue that many evangelicals are more populist than anything outside of the “values” milieu and many of the life issues voters are satisfied with judicial appointees on one hand and totally disaffected on the other. With his different plots Roger has hit on something that the gop was first to recognize with the democrats not far behind: aside form party affiliation if you can collect enough info you greatly increase your chances to figure out how a specific voter will likely vote if you can get them to the polls (think a Volvo owner, vs. a Volvo owner who subscribes to the Wall Street Journal and is a member of the chamber of commerce, vs. a Volvo owner with a New Yorker subscription and works at the National Institutes of Health or is a public school teacher).
That said, data-mining or charting is a danger if you want to win this election rather than the last.
On the CA front, its accelerated RPS and siting/permitting/approval/regulatory processes are making everything more expensive but renewables likely moreso. If AB32 is not accelerated then CA may not lead the country but instead may make itself an island (or 2 if connectivity between the north and south gets stalled) that is held hostage by its own mandates. CA is pathetically behind in approving renewables within its borders. A corollary is that the pressure to develop renewables to hit the mandate accelerates pressure to site on public lands (and tribal lands) outside its borders. Lobbyists in DC are now making inroads on this – no more sleazy casino deals think energy and energy infrastructure! (just kidding of course).
Finally, one of the reasons climate change is getting so much play on the Hill is that it (and of course Iraq but that is a whole other issue
altogether) will tie many GOP senators and reps to the President. That’s why you are unlikely to see something like immigration reform as a top priority but Iraq, climate change, Iraq, climate change. Running against the President in 2008 again is the best scenario for the new majority and having climate change legislation that is passed in at least one chamber but not enacted is not a bad thing for ’08 strategy.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Check your “questionable content” settings. A perfectly resonable attempted post of mine is getting blocked for “questionable content.” Don’t know if you can see it, if not, I can email it.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Steve- Please email it to me .. pielke@colorado.edu … Thanks!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
nice that will be automatically linked in comments http://www.online-backgammons.com