mtpolitics.net

Montana Climate Change Advisory Group, Part III

This is part 3 of an ongoing series. Part one can be found here, part two is here.

Part III — Here Comes the Science

*Just a note on the titles of these posts — I’ve used the terms “Group,” “Commission,” and “Committee” in referring to the group, as I’ve seen them used interchangeably throughout many documents.

The “Here Comes the Science” tag is a bit of a tease since I’m not going to discuss the science at all. In fact, I want to take a look at the committee’s recommendations with the assumption that AGW is a real phenomenon, and man can change it.

So a question you might ask is: What is the measurable change in climate after all of these policies are implemented? There is no answer.

In my mind, some reasonable questions to ask of a policy are:

1. What will it cost?
2. What are the benefits?
3. Where is the money coming from to pay for it?

The executive summary portion of the final report has some very nifty graphs, done in Excel that show that in the RCII sector (Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional) the policy initiatives won’t cost anything at all! In fact, it will save $93 million.

$93 million dollars saved. How? Who saves it? Where did that number come from?

I don’t know. I’ve been looking for it, but I can’t find it. Maybe it’s there. Hard to say. But, to me, the number is suspect. Why?

Let’s look at one seemingly benign policy: Appliance efficiency codes.

From the documents:

Appliance efficiency standards reduce the market cost of energy efficiency improvements by incorporating technological advances into base appliance models, thereby creating economies of scale. Appliance efficiency standards can be implemented at the state level for appliances not covered by federal standards, or where higher-than-federal standard efficiency requirements are appropriate.8 Regional co-ordination for state appliance standards can be used to avoid concerns that retailers or manufacturers may (1) resist supplying equipment to one state that has advanced standards or (2) focus sales of lower efficiency models on a state with less stringent efficiency standards.

In short — mandate high-efficiency appliances be sold in Montana. OK, fine. Let’s keep going with that. A little bit further down in the policy rationale, we get to a section entitled, “Additional Benefits and Costs.”

Benefits

Reduction in water use for some appliance upgrades.

Costs

None Cited.

OK, from the top, let’s have a look: “efficiency standards reduce the market cost of energy efficiency improvements by incorporating technological advances into base appliance models.” I’ll say right up front that this is true. Should it be mandated? No. There’s already a mechanism that does this without it being mandated. (Hint: Rhymes with Flea Market.)

Example: Just a year ago, we had to buy a new washer/dryer combo. How did we arrive on a model? We bought the most efficient model that we could afford. There were more efficient models, to be sure, but many of them were far out of our price range. Given time and demand, however, those technological advances will work their way down into the lower-end models. Either way, the new appliances are far more efficient than the 30-year old ones that went out the door.

Another interesting point is that there are no cited costs associated with this policy. The problem is, if you mandate a standard that is currently higher than what is generally available, there will be costs. And guess who is going to bear them?

Just because they’re externalities, doesn’t mean they’re not costs.

Another example where there are “No Costs Cited”:

Given the long lifetime of most buildings, amending state and/or local building codes to include minimum energy efficiency requirements and periodically updating energy efficiency codes could provide long-term GHG savings.

There are no costs for bringing buildings up to new codes?

A reader (anonymous unless he chooses otherwise) submitted an example of a policy point about rebates in the ag sector, but it doesn’t say where the rebate is coming from.

It seems to me that these issues should throw all the numbers into question.

Whether you’re a Global Warming alarmist or not, the question we all should be asking is this: Is this good policy?

Don’t take my word for it, either. All of the documents can be found online. Read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

(Stay tuned for Part 4 — Why This Matters.)