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.