A judge in New Jersey has determined, after an exhaustive legal proceeding, that RGGI, the regional program to regulate emissions of Carbon Dioxide (the primary pollutant causing global warming) from power plants,  can and must keep confidential internal market information. All sophisticated auctions and markets, like the stock and commodities markets have very similar rules because the traders who operate in these markets could potentially manipulate and subvert the market if they had internal information, like exactly what other businesses bought and sold, and the exact prices they paid.

When the ideological opponents of climate action filed a lawsuit in New Jersey to force full disclosure of all information about the RGGI auction they were in effect asking to force disclosure of this information, a release that would have created a real risk of market manipulation.  Even more suspiciously, it appeared that some of those same opponents were financially backed by businesses who were trading in the RGGI market and would have financial interests in the release of that information.

Now that lawsuit has been dismissed by a wise judge in New Jersey.  In a 75 page decision (posted on the website of the organization that brought the lawsuit) the judge determined that “Clearly, the RGGI auction information is often identified as confidential due to the detrimental effect its release would have on the auction process . . . Thus, the court agrees with defendants that the [disclosure] request—including the names of the bidders, individuals bids, and amount and type of allowances requested are proprietary commercial or financial information and should be not be disclosed.”

The bottom line is that RGGI continues to function, acting as a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and a critical source of support for clean energy development, especially the deployment of energy efficiency.  It is a well functioning market and program and should be preserved and enhanced.  The judge’s decision was not unexpected as this kind of internal confidentiality is so needed and common and is a complete vindication for the states in the RGGI program and the folks who administer the program for them.

Photo credit: Beerzle, flickr

In 2007, Congress passed energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that will decrease air pollution, improve public health and decrease household energy bills. A no-brainer, right? Wrong. This week, the House will vote on bills to repeal those standards – and we need your help to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

The standards require new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012, and 65 percent less energy by 2020. These standards will not ban the incandescent light bulb, but instead give consumers a wider range of bulbs to choose from, including new and improved incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are far more efficient than required by the 2012 standards. What’s more, several manufacturers, including GE, Philips Lighting and Osram Sylvania, already sell new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that use halogen technology. These bulbs meet the 2012 standards and are already available for sale. Learn more about light bulb standards here.

By the numbers, these standards will:

• Save American households $100 to $200+ per year
• Reduce U.S. energy bills overall by more than $10 billion per year – energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants
• Jump-start industry innovation and investment that is creating U.S. jobs
• Avoid 100 million tons of global warming pollution per year – equal to the emissions of more than 17 million cars

But we won’t see any of these benefits if the standards are repealed and we return to using traditional light bulb technology, which has changed very little since Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb some 125 years ago. This is a battle that we can’t afford to lose.

Here’s a bright idea. Send a message to your representatives opposing any bills that would weaken or reverse light bulb efficiency standards.

With the passage of the state budget this week, the Maine legislature put politics ahead of the people in rejecting the Efficiency Maine Trust’s effort to maintain its funding for electrical efficiency programs. The Trust was proposing to increase a charge to electricity ratepayers in order to to sustain its funding levels for electric efficiency over the next three years and replace drained federal stimulus funds.

This was the perfect opportunity for our elected officials to help fulfill their campaign promises to produce growth and economic development in the state. How surprising then, that when presented with a chance to invest in a program that provides at least three dollars of return for every dollar invested, create thousands of jobs in Maine and stimulate commerce, the legislature’s Republican majority and Governor LePage openly rejected it.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the vote was at least in part a product of bias among  conservatives against a program that, because it happens to be good for the environment and was widely supported by Democrats, is perceived to have liberal leanings. In reality, the Trust and its programs are just as much about energy cost savings and economic development, goals to which both parties should aspire. The Trust is the public entity that helps to fund projects that enhance the energy efficiency of Maine’s homes, businesses and industries.

The work of the Trust is important for several reasons.:

• The financing provided by the Trust inspires the replacement of outdated technologies, from machinery to light bulbs, in favor of more energy efficient alternatives that reduce overall energy consumption.
• Less energy consumption means lower electrical bills for the recipient, lower energy prices and less frequent costly upgrades to our electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate increasing demand, savings that are shared by all Mainers.
• The funding provided by the Trust is only a portion of the overall efficiency investment. The Trust’s “seed money” results in significant private investment, borrowing from banks and other forms of financing. In short, the added push of the Trust’s funding for a project results in a commercial ripple effect that benefits many sectors of our economy, providing jobs and demand for products.
• Greater energy efficiency means less electricity needs to be produced, which translates into reduced consumption of fossil fuels and reduced pollution.

But increasing electricity charges can’t be good for Mainers you might suggest. Therein lies the rub. First, the proposed increase was small, approximately one dollar a month for the average household—the cost of a cup of coffee. Second, the economy is not going to rebound while we stand by idly wishing for a miracle, it takes investment to get a return and the Trust is proven to produce returns. In 2010, the EMT saw its $17 million investment in efficiency projects render a lifetime energy savings valued at $95.7 million and serve as the impetus for an additional $76.9 million in private investment in businesses and homes across Maine. Efficiency spending not only saves money– it is an economic driver. Indeed, the Trust funding that the Legislature just denied was predicted to produce an $840 million benefit to Maine energy consumers.

So why would our governor and the legislature effectively defund a program that could generate such significant financial benefits to the state? The answer appears to be party politics that defy logic and economic policy and theory. Perhaps worst of all, it also happens to deviate from state law which requires that Maine, through the Trust, fund and pursue maximum achievable cost-effective levels of energy efficiency.

A longtime friend, colleague and hero of energy efficiency, Blair Hamilton, died peacefully on April 8, 2011.

Since the oil embargo in the 1970s, Blair worked tirelessly to advance energy efficiency and reduce our energy use. The national and international success of energy efficiency is due in no small part to Blair. He was a driving force behind Efficiency Vermont – the nation’s first energy efficiency utility — which is an international model for delivering energy efficiency.

CLF owes a huge debt of gratitude to Blair. He patiently taught me and others much of what we know about energy efficiency. To the extent CLF’s work on energy efficiency is successful, it is in large part because of Blair and his legacy. Blair was always a loyal and true friend, and a capable, dedicated and determined colleague. It has been an honor to know and work with him for many years.

We will miss you and think of you with our continued work.

The ace web/online/blog/communications folks at CLF have installed the WordPress plug-in version of Online Leaf on this blog so if you are reading it and don’t do anything for a minute your screen will go black, reducing the electricity consumption of your computer.

Not a big deal but an important reminder of all the many little , medium, large and very large things we will need to do to fight global warming – and how the things we can do to aid that cause can also save us a bit of money at the same time.

As implementation of the energy efficiency funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act continues to roll forward a window is about to open that will allow buyers of energy efficient appliances to receive substantial rebates.

There is real concern that these programs could prove so popular that the window for getting the rebates will open and close very quickly.  Some states, like Massachusetts, are offering the opportunity to reserve a chance to reserve the rebates  ($250 per dishwasher, $200 per refrigerator, $175 per clothes washer and $50 per freezer) in advance – the Online Reservation Tool to make that happen is scheduled to “go live” at 10:00 AM on April 22, although you can check at the same web page to see what stores are pre-qualified (pretty much all appliance sellers, although note that Boston neighborhoods like Dorchester are listed separately in the alphabetical list of stores) and what models will earn you a rebate.

Some states, like Rhode Island, have given out all their rebate funds – in that case people replacing appliances ruined in flooded basements may have played a role.

To see what the story is in your state click on your state on this map on the U.S. Department of Energy Website.

And if you are buying an energy efficient appliance after these particular rebates are exhausted (they only work in pre-qualified physical stores) or just want to pick up some really cool light bulbs be sure to take a look at the CLF online store operated by the Energy Federation featuring the best of all such stuff and where every purchase benefits CLF.

If President Obama can make the case that “insulation is sexy stuff” in a moment captured on video then we can say that providing the residents of Massachusetts with the chance to save money while staying warm in the winter is sexy as well.

The situation is simple – the federal government sets minimum efficiency standards for furnaces.  If a state wants to have tougher rules, ensuring that furnaces sold in that state use less fuel and produce less global warming pollution, it must ask permission from the feds to do so.  Massachusetts has done so.

CLF submitted a letter in support of this request by Massachusetts.  Among other things we noted the high numbers of renters in Massachusetts compared to the national average and how renters can’t choose the furnace that heats their home, making minimal efficiency standards all the more important.

Ok, we admit this isn’t really sexy.  But it is very important and CLF is proud to be doing this kind of effort in alliance with the consumer advocates at the National Consumer Law Center (who happen to be housed in offices right across the street from CLF’s Boston office) and the experts at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

In a blog post that follows up on a New York Times newspaper story about the groundbreaking McKinsey report on the enormous opportunity for energy efficiency as a resource for tackling global warming there is a nice discussion of the statewide energy efficiency utility in Vermont.

A few key points about the McKinsey report:

• The report shows that a comprehensive approach to making the United States more energy efficient could save consumers $1.2 trillion by 2020.
• The report finds that this approach could also cut overall energy consumption in the U.S. by 23% in the next decade, eliminating the need for expensive new coal plants and dramatically reducing our carbon emissions by up to 1.1 gigatons.
• The study cites research suggesting that energy efficiency could create 600,000 to 900,000 sustainable green jobs in twelve years.

The Efficiency Vermont model, that CLF helped build and grow, as well as other successful models like the programs administered by conventional utilities in Massachusetts, and efforts on the regional level, have made New England a national leader in this critical area – but there is so much more that can be done . . .