Is Pawlenty changing his mind about energy?
In an apparent policy reversal, Minnesota state agencies told legislators that further climate change action may be unnecessary. Data have shown a drop in emissions from 2005 to 2006, and the assistant commissioner for air quality at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, David Thornton, and the new head of the Office for Energy Security, Bill Glahn, suggest that if that trend continues, Minnesota will meet its emission reduction goals in 2015 with no new policy actions.
This seems highly unlikely to me, and I find the suggestion disturbing.
Furthermore, they are suggesting that Big Stone II will reduce carbon emissions because it could replace two older coal plants (which won't happen), and that the only new policy suggestions from the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) they support are eliminating the ban on new nuclear plants (which the MCCAG suggested should be studied) and implementing appliance efficiency standards.
Read more at MinnPost.com
Thanks to Keith for the heads-up.
Feh.
Thornton and Glahn are absolutely right about one thing - if emissions continue to decline at the same rate as they did from 2005 and 2006, Minnesota will reach its 2015 goals. But so what?
On every other point, though, they're just being dumb. Dumb thing number one is the idea of even calling it a "trend" - you need at least three data points to make a trend. Further, they have no excuse for being mystified by why emissions went down, and it wasn't the economy (even though that's all anyone can think of right now): the economy was still growing in 2006 (although I ain't saying it was fantastic or anything).
Emissions went down because there were fewer heating- and cooling-degree days in 2006, along with some other factors (energy prices among them). That's what the feds say, anyway.
And guess what - emissions went back UP in 2007! By more than they had fallen in 2006! So much for a "trend." And why did they go up? Weather! (OK, weather and reduced hydropower use.)
The kind of hand-waving these two are engaging in is embarrassing and distasteful. The only thing more embarrassing and distasteful is that any legislator - especially legislators who ostensibly understand energy issues - would be taken in.
(Yes, I'm looking at national vs. state data, but the underlying factors apply the same in both cases, and MN generally tends to move with the nation as whole in these types of things)
Pawlenty is an energy fraud
Perhaps it was posturing for national office, maybe it was for another reason. But his actions have made clear that he is posturing. We should be investing in energy efficiency now more than ever. At a minimum, the state should create a database with data on buildings and track energy efficiency improvements.
You call that a rabbit?
At least give us the courtesy of making a good show of it. This really is one of the more blatant attempts to get the result you want by manipulating the data. If it's posturing it'll be interesting to see when/if it comes back to bite him.
Where's the top hat?
That's me, by the way.
Lower natural gas demand
I do not think we should take the downward trend for granted. I believe we should attempt to get off of natural gas for home heating. While this is not what the MCCAG recommended, I do not believe they had enough information. This is what I believe you should urge the legislature to do this year.
1. Match the 30% federal tax credit for geothermal heat pumps for new residential construction. This could very well put a cap on new demand in the residential sector.
2. Use some of the stimulus money to provide a grant of $3000 per house district for homeowners that retrofit their houses with geothermal heat pumps following the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency guidelines. Most contractors install systems larger, and thus more expensive, than this.
3. Sell bonds to provide homeowners with low interest loans to install geothermal heat pumps.
4. Mandate that no additional electricity for the heat pumps come from coal. The worst the environment will be is to break even with a 95% efficient furnace. The environment could come out much better depending on how the electricity is generated.
My house in Eden Prairie has a 5 ton geothermal system. Following the Canadian guidelines, it should have a 3 or 4 ton system. A 3 ton vertical loop field forced air system should cost:
3 x $2200 = $6600 for the loop field
$4000+ for the heat pump
and $3000-$4000 more for the pump pack, electric supplementary heat, and hooking it up.
A 4 ton system should cost:
4 x $2200 = $8800
$5000+ for the heat pump
and $3000-$4000 more for the pump pack, electric supplementary heat, and hooking it up.
That's $15000 for a 3 ton system and $18000 for a 4 ton system, before the 30% federal tax credit.
A quote from a contractor that is considerably higher than that should be examined very closely.
I would like to note that my heating bills are under $400 for the winter, and had natural gas gone to $15/MMBtu as predicted, the cost of heating a house like mine would be $1300-$1400 for the winter with a 95% efficient furnace.
As we clean up our electric generation, we will be simultaneously cleaning up home heating.