Energista - Fossil Fuels - Comments

PUC response will be interesting

mhenergyguy — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:52:27 -0500

Thanks for providing the update. I found the Strib article and point 9 of the recommendations particularly instructive.

9. The Final PPA should not be approved, primarily because of its unreasonable cost to Xcel Energy and its ratepayers, the likelihood that its cost will increase, not decrease over time, and because of the other deficienciesidentified in the Findings. While Excelsior Energy and its witnesses have claimed that the PPA cost will become more reasonable in the future, particularly in light of the Project’s environmental benefits, there is not sufficient evidence of that value to overcome the very significant cost difference that exists today.

This would seem to make it difficult for the PUC to decide in favor of the project, but the project's backers have built a lot of political support. I haven't checked to see how the project has fared among the current set of commissioners, but this would be an interesting piece of information. And, there will likely be at least one new commissioner by summer. So, the real political play may be at the Governor's office.

Veto override

shadoweyes — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:43:54 -0500

MPR covered this story also - I would add this passage to your story:

"Right now with this bill, we don't have enough votes to override a veto. But we can massage things so that we can get enough votes to override a veto," Murphy said.

A Danes point of view

nobody — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:25:59 -0600

As a Dane I would really much appreciate not being mentioned by terror-free oil.
If America should do something for the entire world - use less gasoline.

Rural/Urban Equity

darrell — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:48:56 -0600

One of the big concerns for me about the gas tax is the rural/urban equity issue. A gas tax is a valid vehicle to increase the cost of single occupancy vehicle use and transfer it to alternatives. The key, though, is that there must be alternatives. Public transit is a great alternative that should be expanded. It does not work for everyone everywhere, though. Public transit is most effective when there is a concentration of riders and destinations. In the urban areas it is easy to design a good transit network to provide an effective transportation alternative.....it just takes the will power and money.

In rural and even exurban areas it's much more difficult. In some cases you have some clear employment destinations transit can be organized around. Say a remotely located large factory or industrial node. In my hometown there are a number of large employers located along the road south of town (from 10 - 30 miles) and in neighboring towns to the east (20 to 50 miles). Car pooling has been popular for years and some public transit is now being provided. A large number of the trips in the area, though, are from widely dispersed starting points to widely dispersed destinations. Public transit in this case is not an option. Another common concern are the small business owners and contractors that are limited in their ability to reduce trips and the availability of cost competitive fuel efficient vehicles to meet their needs.

To me, the many concerns about the gas tax can be resolved if you look at it from the viewpoint of pushing people to effective alternatives, and providing those alternatives, while not disproportionately harming those who don't have alternatives. Push people to use public transit instead of driving, purchasing more efficient vehicles, driving only when necessary and trip chaining, moving closer to destinations, etc. But then use a portion of the taxes to offset the impact on those who do not have the alternatives.

It's pretty clear, though, that a gas price increase from a slowly phased in gas tax is much more preferable than one due to market forces. Not only does it put money in hands that can help smooth out the equity issues it also allows for public investment in the alternatives important for it to work. As Christopher said, it also gives a signal to the market to allow prepatory changes rather than having to absorb the increased cost due to short-term inelasticity. Last, it removes some ability to control prices from OPEC who try to keep them artificially low in order disincentivise innovation and development of alternatives.

Studies have shown...

Joe — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:38:34 -0600

I remember reading in E's class that at least to date, the rebound effect you are talking about has been negligible. So I think we would still see net gasoline consumption per capita go down. Another problem with higher standards though is that people only buy new cars so often, so the gains we get with higher standards take a long time to be realized. People might even be reluctant to give up their gas guzzlers so would wait even longer.

One way to make a gas tax more politically palatable would be to lower income taxes at the same time. Al Gore has taken this to the extreme, calling for eliminating all income taxes in favor of a carbon tax. Of course, this begs the question of how regressive a gas tax would be. A gas tax would also help Detroit become profitable on sales of their smaller cars. Word has it GM supports a gas tax, probably in lieu of mileage standards, though I can't find any statements on their website.

Gas Tax

christopher — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:40:46 -0600

I think it is a really bad idea to raise CAFE without a concurrent raise of the gas tax. We don't want people to drive more frequently because it becomes cheaper.

I think a policy of slowly increasing the gas tax makes a lot of sense. Start it in a few years, so the market can respond, but send a clear signal to the market that fossil fuel prices are going up.

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

nobody — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:49:41 -0600

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

This comment has been removed.

Comments such as this, which are barely on topic and basically spammed across energy sites will not be tolerated on Energista.

We strive for organic discussion - not comment spam.

--shadoweyes, energista overlord

Thank you

shadoweyes — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:19:32 -0600

I appreciate the vote and want to note that this is only possible because several people have bit pitching it. It would be impossible to make this worthwhile with just one person.

Thank you also for making accounts so we know who we are talking to whenever possible.

this is just a great blog

Mike Bull — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:23:17 -0600

I agree... you're doing a great job, Christopher!

1.5% Clarification

nobody — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:40:53 -0600

Gov. Pawlenty intends for utilities, through their CIPs, to achieve energy savings equal to 1.5% of their sales by 2015 (CIP goals). To note, they are currently achieving about .5 to .8% (depending on utility), so the math is a bit different from what you describe. The proposal should reduce the growth in energy use year over year vs. what it would have been without the change.

The real rubber hiting the road will be the amount of renewables in a utility's portfolio at the various target dates - I think some folks see the increase in CIP goals as a carrot for utilities because it reduces the denominator with which the renewables numerator is calculated.

I just discovered this page and think you're posting interesting stuff. Thanks.

I'd argue that the press

nickmark — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:04:14 -0600

I'd argue that the press release was perfectly clear. It's just not reflective of the administration's actual intentions.

1.5% clarification

shadoweyes — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:13:21 -0600

Right, the press release was less clear. However, either Ed Garvey or Mike Bull was quite clear about what the governor intends when presenting to the House Energy Committeee

In his
nickmark — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:08:00 -0600

In his press release, the governor calls for "utilities to reduce their retail sales by 1.5% annually." Like I said, he doesn't really mean it, but that's what it says.

Reducing Growth

christopher — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:28:44 -0600

I think that what Pawlenty is proposing is for each utility to reduce their demand growth by 1.5% or 2%. So if they are growing by 1% now, they have to start shrinking under his plan.

The Leg is going to pass the RES/REO first, then deal with the rest I think.

Still a narrow thing

nickmark — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:25:52 -0600

If the reason one cares about the RES is climate change, it's important to remember that the most aggressive target proposed -- 25% by 2020 -- just barely manages to keep up with demand growth, depending on what you take the growth rate to be (I've seen statewide numbers ranging from 1.9% to 2.3% per year). By my modeling, the targets set out in SF 4 would have us emitting about the same amount in 2020 as in 2010 (which is pretty logical, since the bill requires a 2%/year growth in the renewables share over that time). If the growth in renewables is anything less than demand growth, emissions still go up. Great River's resource plan anticipates a 2.3% average annual growth in energy sales from 2004-2023.

Now, if we can keep growth under control, the picture changes significantly (and the RES targets get a lot easier to meet). The governor has called for a 1.5% annual decline in electricity consumption, which I'm certain he didn't actually mean. If he meant holding growth to 1.5%, then by 2020 we might have emissions down to about 2005 levels.

Stabilizing emissions is of course an important first step. Given that there's argument about whether we could manage 25% by 2020, I think it's important to understand how the targets we set play into the overall emissions picture. If you think the RES alone is going to reduce our emissions, you're mistaken. But holding them constant is going to be tough enough that maybe we should just be OK with that.

Energista - Fossil Fuels - Comments

PUC response will be interesting

Veto override

A Danes point of view

Rural/Urban Equity

Studies have shown...

Gas Tax

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

Thank you

this is just a great blog

1.5% Clarification

I'd argue that the press

1.5% clarification

In his nickmark — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:08:00 -0600 In his press release, the governor calls for "utilities to reduce their retail sales by 1.5% annually." Like I said, he doesn't really mean it, but that's what it says.

Reducing Growth

Still a narrow thing

In his
nickmark — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:08:00 -0600

In his press release, the governor calls for "utilities to reduce their retail sales by 1.5% annually." Like I said, he doesn't really mean it, but that's what it says.