Daily Kos

Energize America: FESA not FISA!

Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:44:17 PM PDT

Join us at Netroots Nation, next Friday, room 19, 9 am, for Energizing America:  Setting an Agenda for Progress.  This panel will range far and wide across our energy challenges and opportunities.  

Part of the discussion: the Freshman Energy Smart Acceleration (FESA) Act.  

FESA is a package of suggested programs that could provide a rallying point for the freshmen (and women) class of 2009, to join together for passage a set of legislative initiatives to help spark an Energy Smart renaissance across the United States.

A note before embarking:  Let us be clear. While this is being worked and discussed with a number of campaigns, FESA remains a concept proposal and there are no candidates signed up to endorse it.  And, it remains a draft set of ideas -- open to and welcoming comments, suggestions, criticisms, ridicule, and maybe even some praise.

FESA Principles and Assumptions

The Freshmen Energy Smart Acceleration (FESA) Act is built around a core set of principles and assumptions.

  • The proposed programs should have wide-spread impact, preferably in all 50 states.
  • The programs should work with public-private, federal-state-local partnerships.
  • The programs should make financial sense for the nation, while improving our energy and environmental situations.
  • The ideas should improve capacity (broadly defined), creating the possibility for cascading impacts, to help spark change across the nation.
  • FESA should, as part of capacity building, provide paths to improve understanding of and education about energy issues throughout the United States.
  • The FESA is not intended as a comprehensive energy package, to supplant or undermine Acts already under consideration within Congress.  They are complementary to concepts being proposed by campaigns and Acts being worked on within Congress.
  • The FESA Act elements should begin to show tangible results within two years
  • A single freshman member of either the House or Senate has limited ability to drive through a policy initiative. A group, committed to a set of actions, has a greater chance of seeing a clearly defined program enacted. And, with this in mind, the total package is limited to $3 billion per year.

The Freshmen Energy Smart Acceleration (FESA) Act of 2009

With those principles and assumptions in mind, the following are six proposed ideas to be combined into the FESA Act of 2009.

Energy Smart Communities Act

This would see the realization of a concept developed with the original Energize America 20-point plan of 2006 that was further developed and worked on with members of Congress in 2007.

The ESCA would require $1.1 billion in funding each year to spark energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in local government infrastructure.  The Federal Government would provide a ten percent match to all bond efforts focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy. (Thus, $10 billion in bonds with $1 billion USG matching. Ten years to help spark $110 billion in local and state government investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.) The additional funding would enable the Federal Government to provide State and Local Governments energy audit and program planning expertise support.  In addition, the Federal government would provide support in structuring/writing/negotiating bond terms. The basic target:  the energy savings would be greater than the costs of repaying the bond, thus leading to a financial savings for the local community.  In addition, these efforts within local government buildings would help develop the capacity (from building inspectors to solar hot water installers to code writers) for local businesses and individual citizens to be able to pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

Green the Schools

This part of FESA would supplement the recently passed House 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.  The FESA Green the Schools Act would provide $500 million / year additionally to (1) $200 million to enable 100% of new school construction to meet Energy Star / LEED Silver standards (at a minimum); (2) $200 million to spark achievement of Energy Star + / LEED Gold or Platinum in additional school construction; $50 million a year to fund student data gathering and research in public schools on program impacts/efficiency as well as education in, for example, conducting energy audits.  Finally, the act would provide $25 million per year in scholarship awards to students engaged in these efforts.  And $25 million would be available for standards development, lessons identified, and for educating school boards, school administrators about greening efforts, the financial and other benefits from greening the schools.  To be clear, greening school facilities is almost certainly the most cost effective way to improve student performance, with students (and teachers) doing better in healthier schools. And, the energy savings alone will pay for any extra capital costs to 'green the school'.

Plug-In-Hybrid Electric School Buses

Plug-In Hybrid Electric School Buses (PHESBs) offer a range of benefits, from reduced diesel fuel costs to reducing youth exposure to diesel fume cancer (and other disease causing) pollution to providing mobile generators for emergencies or even local concerts.  Right now, there is a purchase price hurdle that make PHESBs a poor financial decision for school systems facing tight budget environments.  Establishing these on a large-scale, production line that enables learning and economies of scale would drive this differential down to the point where PHESBs would become the preferred option for most school systems. The FESA PHESB Act is intended to provide enough incentive to get PHESB production levels to that point.

The FESA PHESB Act would provide $60 million / year to spark the PHESB industry and to make PHESBs the standard for school systems.  First year, $35 million for paying up to 50% of cost of PHESB for acquiring school district (40% year 2, 30% year 3, 20% year 4, 10% year 5); $10 million for paying up to 85% of PHESB cost for disadvantaged school districts (maintain this level); $5 million for PHESBs for military bases (for two years; after that for buying PHESBs for prison system and other requirements); $5 million for V2G (vehicle-to-grid) research and deployment assistance specifically focused on school buses.  Note:  No state to receive more than 20% of the funding per year; minimum of 20 states per year in funding.  All 50 states to have PHESBs supported for purchase by year 5.  By the end of the fifth year, if the average assistance is $50k, this program would foster introduction of over 4000 PHESBs and make PHESBs competitive with traditional diesel school buses for purchase decisions.

Energy Smart Education:  

The FESA ESA Act would provide $75 million in funding ($500k per state; $100k per Congressional district) for "eco-efficient" drivers' education; funding for energy education in public education programs; money for students to study/document energy impacts in their communities; with scholarship programs associated with this.

Energy Smart Rail

The FESA Energy Smart Rail (ESR) Act would seek to spark private industry to invest to transition the US rail system to all electric.  $1 billion / year initiative to spark private investment in electrification of rail system.  (This would make the Federal commitment in the range of 10% of the total cost. Note, for that, reduction of US oil demand by 500,000 or more barrels per day by 2020 ... roughly 2.5% of US current demand.) $100 million/year in additional funding for research and development support for using the electrified rail system for a HVDC grid across the country. $50 million in funding for rail energy related research.  

Energy Smart Mail Service

The FESA ESMS Act would provide $200 million for renewable energy / energy efficiency projects at US post offices throughout the country. ($200k for every Congressional District; $1 million for every state.) For post offices, with displays in the post office lobby. (Solar hot water, solar electric, small wind, geothermal heating/cooling, biomass, white roofs; etc ...)   $50 million for USPS EV/PHEV (and V2G).

FUNDING FESA?

There is a not minor issue at stake. In a "pay go" environment, where should FESA funding come from.  For example, should the $100 million going to "abstinence only" sex education be used to fund the FESA Energy Smart Education Act?  Should improved royalty collection on fossil fuel production from Federal land be used to pay for the entire FESA? Should FESA have explicit funding streams?

Questions / Reactions / Thoughts?

What is right here? What is wrong? Of course, there are missing elements ... any glaring errors?

Are the principles and assumptions good ones?  Is this the sort of thing that a coalition of candidates should sign up to, in your opinion?

And, as a reminder, the above is only the briefest of introduction to each of these ideas.

Feedback?  

Please.

Ask yourself:  Are you doing your part to ENERGIZE AMERICA?

Are you ready  to do your part?

Your voice can ... and will make a difference.

So ... SPEAK UP ... NOW!!!

And, join Jerome a Paris, Devilstower, Energy Smart candidates Debbie Cook (CA-45) and Mark Begich (AK-Senate), and myself for Energizing America:  Setting an Agenda for Progress next Friday morning in Austin, Texas.

Tags: energize america (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 44 comments

  •  Energy is the real key to US survival. (6+ / 0-)

    Obama has to push policy for US energy efficiency, cutting US energy usage by 50% over the next 8 years to match Europe and Japan who use 50% less energy per capita and per GDP dollar.

    Nothing helps the US more and faster than cutting oil use by 50%. It affects national security, trade deficit, dollar, economy, environment.

    FISA is such a side show in comparison.

    •  Well, that and Food Energy -nt (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mataliandy
    •  Thus, FESA not FISA ... (6+ / 0-)

      at least when discussing Energize America.

      Let us be clear. The FESA won't solve our problems.  It could have a real impact, there are some potential Silver Bullets here (especially electrifying rail (could cut oil demand by 500,000+ barrels/day by 2020) and the Energy Smart Communities Act), but this is not a full set solution.

      There are many other things that Obama and Congress should do come next January. But this is a package that would have nation-wide impact that a group of Freshmen could stand up and say: "this was our doing!"

      •  It's a good blueprint to start out with (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mataliandy, A Siegel

        Hope you have a large crowd at NN.  [And wish I could be there... sigh]

        Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

        by bronte17 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Great ideas. I think it's particularly (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        good to focus on programs that can actually show results within two years, and that can save local communities money.  Tangible, near-term results will gain us a lot of new recruits among the people out there who are still skeptical about going green.

    •  I'd like to think that the ability of companies (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mataliandy, A Siegel, trivium, limpidglass

      and persons in this country to conduct their own business WITHOUT the oversight of the spy network and politicization is a huge benefit to industriousness and innovation.

      This isn't a zero sum game.  You can have both freedom and a sound energy policy.

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:55:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely ... (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mataliandy, bronte17, JayDean, Methion, trivium

        it not an either/or, but we should have both sensible energy and sensible privacy policy (and sensible fiscal, health care, environmental, etc ...)

        •  I would arge the other direction... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          and claim that you can't have freedom at all without a sound energy policy.

          And if you need a good example, consider the events of today: as far as I can tell, the Bush administration's response to Iran is limited to diplomacy or sanctions, because our precarious energy situation precludes any kind of military response. I'm not suggesting yet another idiotic military mistake in the Middle East, but what I am suggesting is that if that were a viable option otherwise, it would have to be taken off the table because it would impact quite negatively our energy supply.

          Sane energy policy IS national security freedom.

          ~Doc~

          -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

          by EquationDoc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We are probably in a lot of agreement ... (0+ / 0-)

          •  That is a facetious argument. (0+ / 0-)

            That bush does not attack Iran because we cannot afford the oil shocks, therefore this is sane decision-making and furthers our freedom.

            My gawd... sorry to rain on your parade, but that is horrible reasoning.

            bush is on his way out the door. He is a whiny incompetent megalomaniac. To equate his screw-ups and chest-beating idiocy with "sane" energy policy is a fallacy.  

            We have lost time, valuable time, without a doubt.  But, we can move quickly down a better path soon.

            We don't have to offer up our civil rights and liberties in the interim.

            Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

            by bronte17 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:12:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah I know...hence the subjunctive tense... (0+ / 0-)

              "if that were a viable option otherwise."

              Nowhere did I suggest Bush was a sane decision maker. In fact, while I used Bush and Iran as a specific example, I was trying to make a more general point: so long as we have an insane energy policy, energy considerations will affect the national security decisions of any president. Moreover, it will affect pretty much every decision of every president. (And if it doesn't affect the decision making process, it will affect the success or failure of such decisions.)

              I think either you mis-read my original comment, or else I was unclear in my comment. I'll claim it was the former :) and assume you would claim it was the latter :) in which case hopefully this comment clarifies it. ;)

              ~Doc~

              -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

              by EquationDoc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You don't see the energy over oil as FISA (0+ / 0-)

        US will survive the FISA bill. US will not survive with current oil and energy policies.

        There's an odd perspective that inflates a thin difference on FISA (Obama opposed the immunity, Obama voted to exclude immunity, Obama will prosecute warrant less wiretapping) but snoozes in comparison over the real key issues to US survival like oil and energy.

        The energy here in parsing minute politcal differences into Alamo like sieges. It is is the same wedge mentality that has created the grid lock in US politics that Obama has clearly come out against. It threatens US survival.

        •  Look... whether Congress sits on its hands (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Methion, A Siegel

          and does nothing, as usual, and this includes our presidential candidates (BOTH of them)... there will be alterations to our energy and oil policies because of the underlying shocks, markets and  necessities.

          Not in time and not sufficient for the largest number and the greatest good, but it will happen.  Sooner than later.

          It is ridiculous to go the "gloom and doom" route and say we don't even need our civil rights because we'll all be dead or destroyed or something.

          Again, this is not a zero sum game we're playing here.

          Freedom, liberty, civil rights and our Constitution are NOT negotiable components of energy policy or alternatives.

          Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

          by bronte17 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's the energy level on DKOS FISA vs. oil/energy (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            A Siegel

            Oil energy is a true survival issue for the US from 911 to trade deficit to wars in Iraq, Afghanstan, to Iraning nuclear missles, to the oil weapon to jobs and the economy.

            FISA just doesn't measure up. FISA is not not "freedom and liberty" it is a questionable intelligence tool that Congress and the next president should repeal but it doesn't threaten US survival it doesn't even represent a real threat to US civil rights. It is a potential threat to US civil rights.

            It's OK to complain about FISA. Obama should have voted no. But it is just not a true national priority issue as is oil which is a war and survival issue.

            •  Listen... it IS a big deal when governments (0+ / 0-)

              and corporations and people cannot conduct private business and negotiations with critical and valuable internal information.

              You do not seem to understand the reach and depth of the components of FISA and just what the representatives of our republic have granted.

              Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

              by bronte17 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:16:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry but you wildly exaggerate FISA (0+ / 0-)

                It is more of an emotional issue vs. a rational issue.  Claiming corporations and citizens are not conducting business as usual is silly.  It has no chilling effect on politics or democracy.  It could be misused by the government to spy on political opponents a la Nixon and Watergate, that is the danger of all government spying. But US survived Nixon, we survived J. Edgar Hoover which was much, much worse than FISA spying which is squeaky clean in comparison.

                FISA is a distraction in that it represents a vague and potential threat while US is literally at war because of oil.

                •  No one said anything about the war over oil (0+ / 0-)

                  and its threat to our vulnerabilities and viabilities.

                  But calling FISA a "distraction" is flippant.

                  Some folks can multitask. Or walk and chew gum at the same time.  Whatever lingo you want to use here.

                  There is no reason for the FISA capitulation.

                  Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

                  by bronte17 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:35:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Compared to oil threat, 30 yr old FISA irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

                    Calling minor changes in it "FISA capitulation" is baseless hysteria.

                    Was FISA a campaign issue in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006?

                    I don't like the idea of FISA existing at all. Secret courts give me the creeps though this one is only for issuing search warrants. But looking at this 30 year old agency and suddenly it is the greatest threat to democracy since Nixon's "plumbers" is not rational.

  •  Looking forward to the panel (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, A Siegel

    It's a tough time slot, but none other I'd rather attend.

    ::

  •  I'm tied down here. Last year's panel was good. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, A Siegel, DemocraticLuntz

    However, I was very disappointed with the science and environment sessions. They were lacking in both substance and interest.

    It would be fantastic if someone could get a few of the realclimate bloggers to cover climate change.

    If only the other technical sessions could have been as substantive as your energy session...

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:01:24 PM PDT

  •  I call live-blogging again! (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, raines, A Siegel
  •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, A Siegel

    Thank you for your continued information.  I look forward to the panel at Netroots!  See you there!

    Finding your own Voice -- The personal is political!

    by In her own Voice on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:39:47 PM PDT

  •  Has anyone done a cost-benefits... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Trendar, A Siegel

    analysis? I'm wondering just what kind of benefits we'd get from these investments. For example, how much does a typical post office spend per year in, say, electricity costs that ESMS would attempt to address, and what would be the expected savings as a result of ESMS?

    I'm also suspicious that you're not thinking big enough. For example, Connecticut has five CDs and 169 towns, almost all (if not all) of which have a post office. So $1M spread across 169 post offices works out to $5,917.16 per post office. This might buy each one a more energy efficient coffee pot, but it won't stretch very far beyond that.

    ~Doc~

    -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

    by EquationDoc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:53:46 PM PDT

    •  Couple points ... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Trendar
      1.  Numbers are crunched on a number of these (such as ESCB, which actually suggests that Federal costs would likely be recouped due to increased tax revenues on the economic activity; and that energy savings would exceed local costs), but not as clearly crunched on all of them.
      1. I agree that these are not panaceas, with necessarily enough reach to have massive change. Part of purpose, however, is to spark knowledge.  Consider that $1 million as $6k per year per post office, but that is $30k for some limited action at each US Post Office via the taxpayer additional above other resources for a probject within a five year period.  $30k:  Skylighting + some limited solar?  $30k: New lighting?  And, in this case, the energy savings would free up operating costs that could be reinvested in new projects.  And, not necessarily every post office ...
      1.  Serious about trying to have a limited financial level.  But, a limited financial level that would have demonstrable impacts across the country that would have educational and capacity building impacts in addition to the direct energy savings benefits.
      1.  By the way, good points.  Would you want to come up with a better suggested path for ESMS?
      •  Let me think about that some more... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Trendar, A Siegel

        but what came to mind first in your fantastic and detailed reply was that it might make more sense, at least in some cases, to give all $30K at once rather than $6K a year for 5 years. That is, with $30K I might be able to convert our post office fully to solar, but it might be harder to do in five $6K chunks. Maybe each year give 1/5 of the states the full $6M, either randomly or prioritized by average annual energy expenditures or some other metric.

        Bigger chunks could have bigger impact, and if smaller chunks would make more sense they can still break the bigger chunk into smaller chunks.

        The $50M for USPS EV/PHEV is a no-brainer--a perfect application for EV/PHEV with an easily calculable return on investment.

        Oh, the other thing I forgot to ask: in the PHESBs idea, did you consider that many or most school systems no longer do their own transpo? Most, if not all, school districts in Connecticut contract out their busing (our school system uses DattCo, http://www.dattco.com/...).

        If you didn't consider this, you might check out how many schools still do their own transpo--I bet few do, it's so damn expensive, and it's not exactly related to their core mission, so it's a good choice for outsourcing.

        I'm going to keep thinking about this. I love the idea of helping arm freshmen with a portfolio of great ideas like these, ideas that make sense and can easily be turned into legislation.

        ~Doc~

        -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

        by EquationDoc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re the school buses ... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Trendar

          it is a real challenge. Yes, they are outsourced. But, in the end, the taxpayers pay for the diesel fuel. And, for the health impacts on the children.

          The challenge is how to secure some of the secondary benefits if these buses are being subsidized for private companies.

          But, in terms of the 'system-of-system' value of going PHESBs, the value is still there even with private school bus services. The challenge becomes how to account for/manage what will be a more complicated issue.

          •  OK good...then we're on the same page. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            A Siegel

            Generally I have a problem with giving public money to private companies/corporations in order to present them with incentives to do what should be obviously in the best interests of their profits. Remember the $13 or $14 billion Congress gave the oil energy companies to research energy? That said, I think it's worth it for the reasons you point out. Also worth keeping in mind that it's not just buses, there are also vans used in a lot of cases.

            Just to throw numbers out--our town of 17,000 residents has three grade schools, one middle school and one high school, with about 1,300 students and an annual budget of about $31M, and $1.5M is for transportation. If we reduced those costs by a few hundred thousand dollars...I wonder how much oil and carbon emissions and pollution we'd eliminate?

            Also, I don't recall solar power and heating being a big part of the 21st Century Green Schools Act, but I think this is worth pursuing nationally. Heating costs are going up (a big deal in cold winter climates like CT), and every little bit counts. To this end, one of our grade schools is being refurbished, and this is part of the refurbishing:
            http://findarticles.com/...
            Of course there are already tons of solar incentive programs, but more investment in this area would promote wider adoption.

            ~Doc~

            -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

            by EquationDoc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:34:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Appreciate this interaction / engagement ... (0+ / 0-)

              The money for the PHESBs is to provide enough funding so that we can foster enough of an industrial line that PHESBs become a natural choice over traditional diesel buses.

              Very roughly:

              * Current school bus purchase: $80k * PHESB, individual purchase: $200k (last I saw, only 17 built and in operation) * Purchase of 100 reportedly enough to drive that $200k to under $140k.  $140k is the breakeven, with traditional bus patterns, for diesel cost savings with diesel at $2/gallon * A program with 1000+ PHESBs would drive this cost differential down, reportedly, in the $20k range * The proposed program would provide enough funding for multiple companies to develop PHESB lines

              Note that for the private school buses, it simply does not make any financial/business sense to go buy a PHESB at $200k.  If they were running $100k (or such) with, lets say, a two/three-year payback period in terms of saved fuel and other costs?  Then it becomes a compelling business case to buy PHESB rather than traditional diesel bus.  

              Re 21st Century Green Schools: my understanding is that the solar power/heating/hot water is implicit in the LEED/Energy Star/other standards written into the bill but, to be honest, I didn't read the legislation section by section.  An interesting little piece of Silver Dust (not big enough to be a Silver BB) related to that: every single public swimming pool that is heated should have solar hot water to support that heating. This is an incredibly fast payback period (under two years) for a renewable energy project -- faster than many energy efficiency projects.

              •  Enjoying the interaction as well... (0+ / 0-)

                So buy 100 outright (from multiple companies) and distribute them to districts who still do their own transpo (100 x $200K = $20M), driving down the price to break-even point at $140K. The expected increase in the price of diesel (even today, I doubt anyone is buying diesel for $2/gallon even with locked-in volume discounts--it's $4.50/gallon here at Citgo) will shift that $140K upward, making $140K much more attractive for private bus companies, but it might still be useful to provide additional but small tax incentives to private bus companies to induce them to replace buses that might not be scheduled for replacement. My thinking is if you want to get production to 1,000 PHSEBs, a $10K tax incentive for each PHSEB would only cost us another $10M and would accelerate PHSEB purchases and the decline in price.

                100 PHSEBs bought outright at $200K each + 1,000 tax incentives at $10K each = $30M total. And PHSEBs would be cheaper than diesel. Seven cents per year per American for two years seems like a very tiny price to pay to make PHSEBs cheaper to purchase AND cheaper to run than diesel considering the return on investment:  if this eventually saved each school district in CT even $1K per year, that would be $170K per year state-wide. Multiply that by 85 (CT is about 1/85 of the US population), and you recoup that $20M in about two years. It's a no-brainer.

                This has GOT to happen and fast. Most schools have already trimmed everything they can just to adapt to the economy (reduced tax revenues), yet have not started to feel the impact of recent gas prices because they tend to lock into multi-year bus contracts, one or two year fuel contracts, or both. When those contracts come up for renewal, the increased transpo costs will force very real and deep cuts into more critical aspects of their mission.

                I'm taking the rugrats to our public pool in an hour, I'll see if I can find out what their costs are for heating. But this seems like such a cheap no-brainer, I have to wonder if towns (or, perhaps, states) could address it locally all by themselves. I'm actually wondering if our town has already done it, and if not, why not. Solar pool heating is so yesterday.

                BTW, these are parts of that eroding infrastructure we have overlooked, and it might be useful (politically) to discuss them in that context.

                ~Doc~

                -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

                by EquationDoc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:12:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Honestly (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't see the requirement to pay 100%. That is why the first year is 50%.  The companies say that a purchase order of 100+ pushes them down into the $140k range and that 1000+ drives them down further (perhaps halving+ difference between 'regular' and PHESB for the Cost-to-Buy).

                  With the 50%, if the buses are at $160k (which large orders or expectation of orders seems reasonable), it is now cheaper for a school district to buy a PHESB than to buy a regular diesel.  

                  Idea of tax credit as path for getting private suppliers to turn this path seems sensible.  

                  Note that a lot of school systems are feeling the diesel prices, heavily, for example, here are just two stories from hundreds (1000s) out there ...

                  Feeling pain at the pump, agencies downsize, scale back  the effect is not confined to the pocketbook. The Clark County School District, for example, has reduced bus routes and stops, forcing many students to walk longer distances.  Although it’s paying at least 80 cents per gallon less for diesel fuel than the $4.50 price charged the general public, the School District saw its monthly fuel bill soar from $750,000 to roughly $1.3 million over the past year, Transportation Director Doug Geller said.

                  "Our cost was up 62 percent over just the past four months," said Geller, who oversees a fleet of 1,470 school buses and 1,270 other vehicles. "We’ve had to cut back in a lot of areas." If fuel prices continue their ascent, the district may be forced to reevaluate the use of buses for after-school activities, including travel by sports teams,

                  Cost for fueling bus fleets hit Ann Arbor area school districts hard  With the surge in fuel costs over the past year, school transportation officials say it's getting harder to figure out how much to budget for fuel expenses. Ann Arbor budgeted about $500,000 this year for fuel costs.

                  "Last year, we went over budget almost a quarter of a million dollars," said Mellor, who oversees the bus maintenance shop. "This year, we can't project how much we'll be over budget. I'm sure we'll have to adjust the budget by the end of the year."

                  Ann Arbor Schools last year used 269,000 gallons of diesel fuel to drive nearly 1.7 million miles, Mellor said. The buses get about 6.7 miles to the gallon. .... Administrators at Ypsilanti Public Schools have watched their fuel expenses rise nearly 59 percent over last year's costs. The district paid about $178,000 in diesel fuel in 2007, said John Fulton, Ypsilanti Schools' executive director of human resources. So far this year, the district has paid $283,000 for fuel.

                  Etc ...

                  RE solar pool heating: my belief is that they (a) just don't get it and (b) have separate capital and operating cost lines, with the "investment" of $10,000+ for a solar heating system much harder to deal with bureaucratically than simply paying the monthly utility bills.

  •  coupling transmission lines with rail is great (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Methion, A Siegel

    Nice idea there - I watched T. Boone's show on MSNBC the other morning, and he did point out that a major help the government could provide would be ensuring rights of way for a cross-country electric grid, so the middle of the country could provide power both ends (with his wind power scheme; large-scale solar in the southwest needs this too).

    With right-of-way resolved, the federal government might not have to actually spend any substantial funds to get a new cross-country grid up and running.

    •  Electrification of rail ... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Methion

      offers some tremendous opportunities.

      We have a segmented system, with policies/otherwise that inhibit the choice to electrify. Every other nation is doing it.

      A relatively small amount of federal funding, with some regulatory incentive, and we would likely have the key 35-40k miles of rail electrified within less than 10 years.  This has a real potential for offsetting over 1 million barrels/day (depends on how strongly we work to move cargo from trucks to rail) and even more if we get better passenger trains up and running.  100% of the technology is in place and other rail countries are doing this aggressively.

      And, there are tremendous corollary benefits, such as using the rails as the right of way for electricity, combination of HVDC for distant and AC lines for local power.  In addition, this now opens up all railroad spurs as potential sites for wind turbines. And, these can be larger wind turbines since we'll be moving all the equipment / material by rail rather than truck.

      Etc ...

      PS: Did you read my piece re T Boone?  Picking at Pickens' Plan.  I half like, half detest his concept.

Permalink | 44 comments