Comment Log Display

Comment Log Display

Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 2 for Design Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-design-ws) - 1st Workshop.


First Name: Ed
Last Name: Myers
Email Address: ecm@lescure-engineers.com
Affiliation: Lescure Engineers

Subject: Innovative consumer incentives for energy efficiency
Comment:
In the draft scoping plan, you note under Personal Actions, "Some
households may choose to swap out
incandescent light bulbs for more efficient compact fluorescent
lights."  Compact fluorescents have been available for 20 years,
are cost effective on a life cycle (energy plus up front
cost)basis for the consumer, yet after all this time they still
are a "specialty" item in most stores I have visited.  We should
all be using them, I'm sure the statewide energy savings would be
as substantial as many of the other measures outlined. Yet I
presume the low up front cost plus familiarity keeps people buying
incandescents for the most part.

Could we somehow incorporate the life cycle costs (including
energy supply cost and carbon tax) into all light bulbs, and if
the consumer wants to then pay more for an incandescent, fine. 
The revenue generated from taxing the incandescent could be used
for other GHG reduction programs to offset the extra GHG's needed
to run the inefficient incandescent.

This is just an example - surely as we move forward there are
other ways to incentivize the public to adopt energy efficient
technologies faster than they will just to "do the right thing". 
Especially when the right thing costs more up front, and in the
energy savings for the individual are difficult to see in their
utility bills, which fluctuate. However, I think the savings for
the state as a whole would be considerable, and we could quantify
them in the aggregate.

Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-07-01 10:50:30



If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.


Board Comments Home

preload