Competition to Reduce Energy Use Results In Savings for Six Brooklyn Neighborhoods - NYSERDA Sponsored Energy Competition Saves Residents Money While Changing Their Habits

http://is.gd/jRbl43
Residents in six Brooklyn neighborhoods participating in “Reduce the Use in District 39” have demonstrated how awareness, education and competition can lead to money-saving energy reductions.

The program was a year-long energy savings competition sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Con Edison and the office of New York City Councilman Brad Lander.

A total of 158 households in Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Kensington, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Borough Park took the challenge. On average, they cut their electricity usage by 4 percent over the course of the competition, compared to the previous year. Their overall savings was $2,542 and 12,108 kilowatt hours (kWh), the equivalent of the amount of electricity needed to power approximately two average-sized homes for a year.

“The competition made the participants look at their energy use in a new and different way – in comparison to their neighbors, friends, and other social connections,” said Francis J. Murray, Jr., President and CEO of NYSERDA. “It shows that this type of program can make a difference in the way people use energy. Competition coupled with awareness is a strong motivation to reduce consumption.”

Innovative initiatives, such as this contest, are becoming more common nationwide, as using behavioral economics to lower energy consumption can be a way of impacting many homes that otherwise would be difficult to reach. Participants were provided with monthly reports on how much energy they used, how much they had reduced from last year, and how their numbers compared to their neighbors’ results. They also received energy-saving tips to help them reduce their electricity consumption and ideas to improve the energy performance of their homes.
...
Two Park Slope residents won special awards – one for the household with the “Smallest Footprint” (lowest total electrical usage), and the other for “Biggest Reduction” (the greatest reduction from last year).

The “Smallest Footprint” award went to Lloyd Hicks, whose household used only 213.7 kWh per person during the competition.... The “Biggest Reduction” winner was Katherine Degn who reduced her household’s energy use by 49 percent compared to the previous year. “The competition and its monthly updates made me constantly aware of my energy consumption, more so than my monthly electric bills,” she said. “And I liked seeing my usage relative to Councilmember Brad Lander’s, so that gave me some sort of comparison.”

Residents achieved reductions by turning off lights, shutting off multiple appliances at once with advanced power strips, reducing the number of computers in use, cooking in microwaves and toaster ovens rather than full-sized ovens, using Con Edison’s free programmable thermostat initiative for central AC, and pulling down shades and closing windows during the summer days.

In addition to the Park Slope winners, Sarah Goodman of Windsor Terrace was a co-winner in each category, as she installed photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on her home in 2010 and reduced her electric bills to nearly zero. PV systems convert sunlight into electricity and generally offset 70 to 80 percent of a home’s electricity needs.

“Reduce the Use in District 39” was NYSERDA’s second pilot neighborhood energy-savings competition in Brooklyn. For more information about how you can be a part of future NYSERDA-sponsored energy competitions, contact competition@nyserda.org.  For more information on NYSERDA’s residential energy efficiency programs, visit  nyserda.ny.gov/residential. For more information on Con Edison's energy efficiency programs, visit www.conEd.com/greenteam Link opens in new window - close new window to return to this page.  or call 1-800-870-6118.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) www.NYSERDA.org
Press Release dated November 21, 2011

... Selecting criteria for new green product development project: ... Taiwan consumer electronics products as an example

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652611005105

Abstract: With changes in the environment and a rise of consciousness concerning environmental protection, industry has begun to devote research and develop into products which reflect the needs for environmental preservation as well as allow them to maintain their market share and competitive advantage. This study summarizes the impact of 24 elements of the R&D of new products in Taiwan’s consumer electronics industry through factor analysis of a practical survey given to those in this industry. Factor analysis extracted four separate factors that speak to the potential for new product development. These factors are as follows: the potential for new product development, identifying the favorable internal and external factors to bolster competitiveness, the capability for R&D mastery and consumer acceptance preferences. This study calculates the corresponding weights of each factor and then proceeds with fuzzy multiple attribute decision making (FMADM) directed at green product development projects possessing the four factors stated in relation to their corresponding weights and finally compares these results with the product development project prescribed by application of the checklist evaluation model. The results prove that FMADM not only reaches the same conclusions as the policy-making checklist but also takes fuzzy uncertainty into account, giving a reflection of the real-world situation.

by Chang-Chun Tsai; Department of Business Administration, TransWorld University, No. 1221, Zhennan Rd., Douliu, Yunlin 640, Taiwan, ROC
Journal of Cleaner Production via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 25; April, 2012; Pages 106–115
Keywords: New product; Green product; Factor analysis; Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making

Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.6.2350
Abstract: We model farmers as facing small fixed costs of purchasing fertilizer and assume some are stochastically present biased and not fully sophisticated about this bias. Such farmers may procrastinate, postponing fertilizer purchases until later periods, when they may be too impatient to purchase fertilizer. Consistent with the model, many farmers in Western Kenya fail to take advantage of apparently profitable fertilizer investments, but they do invest in response to small, time-limited discounts on the cost of acquiring fertilizer (free delivery) just after harvest. Calibration suggests that this policy can yield higher welfare than either laissez-faire policies or heavyhttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3721327281798357425 subsidies.
...
For the average farmer in our sample, who farms 0.93 acres of land, these estimates imply that using fertilizer would increase maize income net of input costs by about $9.59 to $15.68 per season, on a base of about $89.02.
...
Using one half teaspoon of fertilizer per plant increases yield by about $25.22 per acre and costs $19.83 per acre. Without accounting for the extra labor associated with fertilizer use, the rate of return is 106 percent on an annualized basis.
...
For a subset of farmers who used both quantities on test plots in the same season, the extra maize from using 1 teaspoon is valued at only $11.61 per acre at a cost of $20.46. Accounting for labor costs, this corresponds to a negative gross return over a season of approximately -52.5 percent at full price, but about a 41 percent gross seasonal return under a two-thirds subsidy. On an annualized basis, the returns under a 2/3 subsidy are well over 100 percent per year, well above the rate of return to the first unit of fertilizer at full prices.

Using fertilizer can have a substantial overall effect in increasing total income.... We estimate that the average farmer harvests maize worth about $95.72 per acre per season. Using top dressing fertilizer on an acre would cost $19.83. At annualized net returns of 52-85 percent per year, this corresponds to an increase in agricultural income of $10.31-$16.86, or 10.8 percent-17.6 percent of annual income. Since the average farmer in the sample over which we estimated these returns has 0.93 acres of l and, we estimate that using fertilizer would increase agricultural income net of costs by about $9.59 to $15.68, on a base of about $89.02. Thus, while using fertilizer would not immediately allow such farmers to exit from poverty, these are still sizeable income gains.

Despite the potential returns to applying limited quantities of fertilizer as top dressing, only 40 percent of farmers in our sample report ever having used fertilizer and only 29 percent report using it in at least one of the two growing seasons before the program.
...
The overall welfare effect clearly depends on the estimated returns to fertilizer....If we use relatively high estimates of the additional labor required to use fertilizer, the overall welfare benefit of the Savings and Fertilizer Initiative (SAFI) is 0.016, compared to -0.178 for heavy subsidies. At lower estimates of the additional labor hours associated with  fertilizer, the benefits are 0.029 and -0.119, respectively. For the particular parameter values we examine, the costs of heavy subsidies relative to laissez faire exceed their benefits, but this conclusion will clearly be sensitive to assumptions on parameters on profitability.

by Esther Duflo 1, Michael Kremer 2 and Jonathan Robinson 3
American Economic Review www.aeaweb.org/aer/index.php
1. J-PAL, MIT and Paris School of Economics
2. Harvard University and BREAD, Duke University
3. University of California, Santa Cruz and BREAD, Duke University
Volume 101, Issue 6; October, 2011; Pages 2350–90. DOI:10.1257/aer.101.6.2350

Assessing the Energy Efficiency Information Gap: Results from a Survey of Home Energy Auditors

http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-11-42.pdf
Abstract: Commercial and residential buildings are responsible for 42 percent of all U.S. energy consumption and 41 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Engineering studies identify several investments in new enegy-efficiency equipment or building retrofits that would more than pay for themselves in terms of lower future energy costs, but homeowners and businesses generally do not have good information about how to take advantage of these opportunities. Energy auditors make up a growing industry of professionals who evaluate building energy use and provide this information to building owners. This paper reports the results of a survey of nearly 500 home energy auditors and contractors that Resources for the Future conducted in summer 2011. The survey asked about the characteristics of these businesses and the services they provide, the degree to which homeowners follow up on their recommendations, and the respondents’ opinions on barriers to home energy retrofits and the role for government. Findings from the survey suggest that the audit industry only partially is filling the information gap. Not enough homeowners know about or understand audits, and the follow-through on recommendations once they do have audits is incomplete. But the survey findings suggest that low energy prices and the high cost of retrofits may be more responsible for these outcomes than failures of information.
...
It has been estimated that between 13 and 20 percent of the approximately $181 billion spent annually on home renovations relates in some way to energy (State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network 2011; Joint Center for Housing Studies 2009). One study (von Schrader 2010) finds that $54 billion was spent on energy related home improvements in 2007.

One of several reasons offered for this efficiency gap, or what Jaffe and Stavins (1994) term the energy paradox, is lack of information about the cost-effective investments that can be made to improve energy efficiency....

by most accounts, only a small fraction of U.S. homes have had audits and energy retrofits. Neme et al. (2011) estimate that state- and utility-sponsored programs currently reach less than two percent of homes each year. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, less than one percent of homes have had energy retrofits specifically to save energy (Lee 2010). Fuller et al. (2010) report on findings from a 1980–1992 Bonneville Power Administration program that provided free audits and highly subsidized retrofits. Widely considered one of the more successful residential energy-efficiency efforts, the program nonetheless only motivated 5 percent of eligible customers to have an audit. Evidence from the Residential Conservation Service, a subsidized audit program established in the late 1970s, suggests that of customers offered audits at $50 or less by their utilities, only 3–5 percent usually responded (Tonn and Berry 1986).3 Similarly, a review of 85 programs offering audits based on Electric Power Research Institute data found that the average annual participation rate was 3.2 percent (Berry 1993).
...
On average, auditors reported a fee of $349, excluding any government or utility incentives and discounts.7 Reported fees varied greatly, however.... Nearly 24 percent of respondents charge less than $250, but 4.6 percent charge more than $700. ...
Among the 268 companies that provided their firm’s most recent total annual sales revenue (including revenue from products and services unrelated to energy efficiency), the median annual revenue was $237,500. The middle 50 percent of reported revenues ranged from $57,000 to $950,000. A handful of large companies include 74 (26 percent) that reported revenues of $1 million or more and 6 that reported revenue of $10 million or more.
...
Responses indicate that on average, auditors believe that 57 percent of the households who could benefit from an audit do not know about the existence of audits. We also asked our survey participants to speculate about why more homeowners do not obtain audits. Lack of information figured prominently in the responses – 63 percent said that a lack of understanding about what information an audit provides is of major importance or a critical issue. But a larger percentage blamed costs – 72 percent reported that homeowners’ inability to afford the cost of upgrades was of major importance or a critical issue in explaining why people do not obtain audits.
...
by Karen L. Palmer, Margaret A. Walls, Hal Gordon and Todd Gerarden
Resources For the Future (RFF) www.RFF.org
RFF Discussion Paper 11-42; October, 2011

Public responses to policies designed to internalise environmental and social externalities from road transport in New Zealand

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920911000885
Abstract: Based on a public survey of registered voters, we explore four options for internalising the social and environmental costs of road transport. The options were presented together with generalised factual information about their benefits and costs. Respondents are highly supportive of fuel use efficiency standards and exhaust gas quality standards, with lesser support for proposed initiatives of road user charges and speed reduction. Demographic analysis of responses enables identification of those who might favour or oppose particular options. In this case women are identified as being strongly supportive of the speed reduction option.

by Kenneth F.D., Hughey , Geoffrey N., Kerr , Ross, Cullen; all of Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Lincoln 7647, Canterbury, New Zealand; Tel.: +64 3 3252 811; fax: +64 3 3253845
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 16, Issue 8; December, 2011; Pages 575-578
Keywords: Environmental impact analysis; Social impacts of road transport; Full transport costing

Coming Together to Pray, and Also to Find Reduced-Rate Energy Deals

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/science/earth/31churches.html
Like manna from heaven, thousands of dollars in new revenue is raining on a group of congregations here from the unlikeliest of sources: the utility bill.

The windfall arose after 11 churches and a nonprofit youth group got together to solicit reduced-rate bids for electricity — most of it from renewable energy sources — from local suppliers. In the first year of its contract, which ends in May, the group expects combined savings of nearly $100,000.

As the good word has spread, and it gears up to negotiate a second contract, the original group has swelled to 40 members. The bigger alliance plans to exercise even more leverage in the next round of negotiations by requiring bidders to extend the same discounted rate to individual parishioners and members.

And more revenue is on the way: the group is planning to take a cut of those residential savings as a kind of eco-tithe.
...

With their cavernous sanctuaries, large meeting spaces and multi-use buildings often open day and night, churches, synagogues and other religious spaces are particularly clobbered by utility bills that can run into the thousands of dollars each month. Beyond dollars and cents, many congregations also consider environmental measures such as reducing  greenhouse gas emissions as part of their duty to care for God’s creation.
The Energy Star program, which created a certification system for houses of worship a year and a half ago, calculates that by cutting energy use by at least 10 percent, the nation’s estimated 370,000 religious buildings could save a combined $315 million a year and reduce emissions by the equivalent of taking 240,000 cars off the road.
...

Many congregations already treat the environment as a fundamental part of their mission. Officials with Interfaith Power & Light, a network of religious institutions with affiliates in 38 states, said members are installing solar panels, undertaking energy-saving retrofits, buying green power, instilling a love for the earth in sermons and lobbying elected officials for clean energy alternatives. ...
[From its founding in 2000 the network has grown] to 14,000 members, with nearly half of them signing on in the last four years.
...

The next contract will require participants, which now also include synagogues and affiliates like unions and advocacy groups, to either buy renewable energy or commit to energy-efficiency upgrades. For the upgrades, he said, workers from neighborhoods with high unemployment and poverty rates would be hired.
At St. Columba’s Episcopal Church in northwest Washington, an environmental committee was created from the congregation of 3,800 several years ago to come up with energy-saving measures like installing motion sensor lights and purchasing wind power through the local utility.

Still, said Paul J. Barkett, the church’s chief operating officer, St. Columba’s faced monthly energy bills that averaged $8,000, mostly to heat and cool two buildings housing the church, which opens its showers, washers and dryers to about 35 of the community’s homeless people.

St. Columba’s now expects to save up to $12,000 a year after joining the purchasing group. The church operates on an annual budget of $2.4 million....

It is not unusual for businesses, municipalities, schools and other institutions to come together to buy electric power in bulk for a discounted price, said the Retail Energy Supply Association, a trade group. But congregations banding together across denominations — and working into their contract energy efficiency improvements and residential discounts for members — are fairly new, some energy companies said. This is possible in markets like Washington and 16 other states where multiple power suppliers compete for business. In its first year, this approach will result in electric bills that are 15 to 20 percent lower and annual savings that range from a few thousand dollars to $33,000 per institution, according to the DC Project.
...
Not all congregations are buying green power, which sells for about $1 more per megawatt hour than conventional energy.
...

by Mireya Navarro
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/science/earth/31churches.html
The New York Times www.NYTimes.com
July 30, 2011

A choice experiment analysis for solid waste disposal option: A case study in Malaysia

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479711002787
Abstract: In Malaysia, most municipal wastes currently are disposed into poorly managed ‘controlled tipping’ systems with little or no pollution protection measures. This study was undertaken to assist the relevant governmental bodies and service providers to identify an improved waste disposal management strategy. The study applied the choice experiment technique to estimate the nonmarket values for a number of waste disposal technologies. Implicit prices for environmental attributes such as psychological fear, land use, air pollution, and river water quality were estimated. Compensating surplus estimates incorporating distance from the residences of the respondents to the proposed disposal facility were calculated for a number of generic and technology-specific choice sets. The resulting estimates were higher for technology-specific options, and the distance factor was a significant determinant in setting an equitable solid waste management fee.

by Pek Chuen-Khee 1 and Jamal Othman 
^1. The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Semenyih, 43500 Selangor, Malaysia 
^2. National University of Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Journal of Environmental Management via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 6 August 2011 
Keywords: Solid waste disposal; Willingness-to-pay; Choice experiment

The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and North Side Community Federal Credit Union Train Financial Counselors on the Link between Living Green and Saving Green

http://tinyurl.com/6xyjdup
The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and the North Side Community Federal Credit Union recently sponsored a two-day “train the trainer” program for financial counselors to reduce their clients’ household expenses and environmental impact. The program, Equity Express, illustrates that economic and environmental sustainability go hand in hand.

“Despite the popular belief that living ‘green’ is only possible for upper-income households, CNT has consistently found in its research and programs that sustainable practices significantly decrease household expenditures on utility bills, transportation costs, and telecommunications services, to name a few,” said Steve Perkins, senior vice president at CNT. “Households can use sustainable practices to help them save towards goals like homeownership and higher education, while also reducing their environmental impacts. Equity Express shows them how.”

The 13 representatives from nine financial education and homeowner counseling organizations that attended the training can now use Equity Express to show their clients—often low- and moderate-income individuals—how making smart decisions about money has positive impacts for them and the earth. Previous Equity Express Workshop participants in the San Francisco Bay Area have decreased expenses from $20 to $200 per month.

“Our mission at the North Side Community Federal Credit Union is to provide affordable, alternative financial products and services to the community,” said Kristen Cox, Marketing and Community Relations Manager at the North Side Community Federal Credit Union. “We believe Equity Express will add depth to our financial literacy curriculum by providing a participatory and supportive, ongoing six-week class environment in which members learn from each other what best behavioral strategies really work.

Center for Neighborhood Technology www.CNT.org
Press release dated March 17, 2011

Energy saving in Swedish households. The (relative) importance of environmental attitudes

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004460
Abstract: The objectives for energy saving in the housing sector set by recent Swedish energy and climate policies are quite demanding. This article uses nation-wide Swedish survey data from 2004 to 2007 to explore the potential for achieving those targets. Earlier findings that socio-economic characteristics such as age, housing type and income are strongly linked to higher propensities to save on heating and hot water usage are confirmed by ordered logistic regression models. However, general environmental attitudes are also found to play a crucial role. When assessing the relative importance of socio-economic factors and environmental attitudes, the effect on energy saving is generally greater for the former than the latter. In addition, important interaction effects are identified. In relative terms, the effect of environmental attitudes is clearly stronger among households in apartment blocks than among those in detached housing, and stronger among households with higher income than among those with lower income. We end by discussing the implications for the selection and targeting of policy measures to tap the energy savings potential in the population.

Highlights
► We use Swedish survey data to analyse the determinants of household energy saving.
► Housing type plays a crucial role for individuals’ propensity to save energy.
► Environmental attitudes are clearly more important in high-income households.
► Environmental attitudes are clearly more important for people in apartment blocks.

by Johan Martinsson, Lennart J. Lundqvist and Aksel Sundström; all of the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 711, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden; Tel.: +46 317865148; fax: +46 317864599.
Energy Policy via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Article in Press, Corrected Proof; Available online 17 June 2011.
Keywords: Household energy saving; Socio-economic characteristics; Environmental attitudes

Do homes that are more energy efficient consume less energy?: A structural equation model for England's residential sector

http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cam:camdae:1139&r=ure
Energy consumption from the residential sector is a complex sociotechnical problem that can be explained using a combination of physical, demographic and behavioural characteristics of a dwelling and its occupants. A structural equation model (SEM) is introduced to calculate the magnitude and significance of explanatory variables on residential energy consumption. The benefit of this approach is that it explains the complex relationships that exist between manifest variables and their overall effect through direct, indirect and total effects on energy consumption. Using the English House Condition Survey (EHCS) consisting of 2531 unique cases, the main drivers behind residential energy consumption are found to be the number of household occupants, floor area, household income, dwelling efficiency (SAP), household heating patterns and living room temperature. In the multivariate case, SAP explains very little of the variance of residential energy consumption. However, this procedure fails to account for simultaneity bias between energy consumption and SAP. Using SEM its shown that dwelling energy efficiency (SAP), has reciprocal causality with dwelling energy consumption and the magnitude of these two effects are calculable. When nonrecursivity between SAP and energy consumption is allowed for, SAP is shown to have a moderately negative effect on energy consumption but conversely, homes with a propensity to consume more energy have a higher SAP rating and are therefore more efficient.
...
For each extra person living in a dwelling, the expected mean floor area ... [increases] by 7.27m2 (β=0.31**), the mean annual household income will increase by £2,463 (β =0.33**), and the mean energy bill will increase by £88/year (β =0.42**). Moreover, by considering the standardised regression weights for total affects it is possible to compare the relative magnitude of effects across different variables. Here, it is shown that Household Occupancy has the largest overall effect on energy expenditure (β = 0.419**) followed by Floor Area (β = 0.258**) and HHLD Income (β = 0.241**).
...
Using total effects, a £10,000 increase in annual HHLD Income will lead to an expected average increase in Energy Expenditure of £68/year. On the other hand, if we consider only the direct effects of HHLD Income on Energy Expenditure the average increase in Energy Expenditure is only £41/year.
...
An increase in Energy Pattern, as expected, increases both Temperature Difference and Energy Expenditure. Energy Pattern is an ordered categorical variable ranging between 1 and 5 where 1 represents someone who is never home and rarely uses their heating compared to 5, representing a dwelling where heating is on all the time. The difference in annual Energy Expenditure between these two types of users is, on average £139/year.
...
The effect of SAP on Energy Expenditure has a moderate but statistically significant effect (β = -0.22**), while Energy Expenditure is also shown to effect SAP (β = 0.23**). That is, for each standardised unit increase in the SAP rating a subsequent decrease in Energy Expenditure of β = -0.22** is expected. Similarly and to put this in context, it is necessary to examine the unstandardised regression weights. Remembering that SAP is on a scale from (0-110), for each unit increase in SAP the average saving in annual Energy Expenditure will be £3.73. For example, if a dwelling with a poor energy efficiency rating with SAP=30, is renovated to, say, SAP=90 the expected annual average saving in energy expenditure will roughly be £222 per annum (£UK1996) Ceteris Paribus.

Perhaps what is more interesting is the finding that dwellings with a propensity to consume more energy due to higher occupancy rates, higher household incomes, larger floor areas, increased energy patterns and warmer internal temperatures are more likely to have higher SAP ratings. This therefore suggests that homes with a propensity to consume more energy would, in fact, consume even larger amounts of energy if it were not for the fact that these homes were already relatively more efficient when compared to the rest of the building stock.
...
by Scott Kelly
Cambridge University Department of Economics Electric Policy Research Group
EPRG Working Paper 1117, Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1139; 2011

In Japan, a Culture That Promotes Nuclear Dependency

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world/asia/31japan.html
According to Martin Fackler and Norimitsu Onish writing in the May 30, 2011 New York Times:

When the Shimane nuclear plant was first proposed here more than 40 years ago, this rural port town put up such fierce resistance that the plant’s would-be operator, Chugoku Electric, almost scrapped the project. Angry fishermen vowed to defend areas where they had fished and harvested seaweed for generations.

Two decades later, when Chugoku Electric was considering whether to expand the plant with a third reactor, Kashima once again swung into action: this time, to rally in favor. Prodded by the local fishing cooperative, the town assembly voted 15 to 2 to make a public appeal for construction of the $4 billion reactor.

Kashima’s reversal is a common story in Japan, and one that helps explain what is, so far, this nation’s unwavering pursuit of nuclear power: a lack of widespread grass-roots opposition in the communities around its 54 nuclear reactors. This has held true even after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami generated a nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi station.... So far, it has spurred only muted public questioning in towns like this.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan has, at least temporarily, shelved plans to expand Japan’s use of nuclear power — plans promoted by the country’s powerful nuclear establishment. Communities appear willing to fight fiercely for nuclear power, despite concerns about safety that many residents refrain from voicing publicly.

To understand Kashima’s about-face, one need look no further than the Fukada Sports Park, which serves the 7,500 mostly older residents here with a baseball diamond, lighted tennis courts, a soccer field and a $35 million gymnasium with indoor pool and Olympic-size volleyball arena. The gym is just one of several big public works projects paid for with the hundreds of millions of dollars this community is receiving for accepting the No. 3 reactor, which is still under construction.

... In 2009 alone, Tokyo gave $1.15 billion for public works projects to communities that have electric plants, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Experts say the majority of that money goes to communities near nuclear plants.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg, experts say, as the communities also receive a host of subsidies, property and income tax revenues, compensation to individuals and even “anonymous” donations to local treasuries that are widely believed to come from plant operators.

... The aid has enriched rural communities that were rapidly losing jobs and people to the cities.
...
In a process that critics have likened to drug addiction, the flow of easy money and higher-paying jobs quickly replaces the communities’ original economic basis, usually farming or fishing.
...
Tsuneyoshi Adachi, a 63-year-old fisherman, joined the huge protests in the 1970s and 1980s against the plant’s No. 2 reactor. He said many fishermen were angry then because chlorine from the pumps of the plant’s No. 1 reactor, which began operating in 1974, was killing seaweed and fish in local fishing grounds.

However, Mr. Adachi said, once compensation payments from the No. 2 reactor began to flow in, neighbors began to give him cold looks and then ignore him. By the time the No. 3 reactor was proposed in the early 1990s, no one, including Mr. Adachi, was willing to speak out against the plant.
...
The No. 3 reactor alone brought the town some $90 million in public works money, and the promise of another $690 million in property tax revenues spread over more than 15 years once the reactor becomes operational next year.

In the 1990s, property taxes from the No. 2 reactor supplied as much as three-quarters of town tax revenues. The fact that the revenues were going to decline eventually was one factor that drove the town to seek the No. 3 reactor, said the mayor at the time, Zentaro Aoyama.

Mr. Aoyama admitted that the Fukushima accident had frightened many people here. Even so, he said, the community had no regrets about accepting the Shimane plant, which he said had raised living standards and prevented the depopulation that has hollowed out much of rural Japan.
...
While the plants provide power mostly to distant urban areas, they were built in isolated, impoverished rural areas.

Kazuyoshi Nakamura, 84, recalls how difficult life was as a child in Kataku, a tiny fishing hamlet ...

At first local fishermen adamantly refused to give up rights to the seaweed and fishing grounds near the plant.... They eventually accepted compensation payments that have totaled up to $600,000 for each fisherman.

Today, the dirt-floor huts of Mr. Nakamura’s childhood have been replaced by oversize homes with driveways, and a tunnel has made central Kashima a five-minute drive away.... Only about 30 aging residents still make a living from fishing.
...
Much of this flow of cash was the product of the Three Power Source Development Laws, a sophisticated system of government subsidies created in 1974....

The law required all Japanese power consumers to pay, as part of their utility bills, a tax that was funneled to communities with nuclear plants.
...
Critics point to the case of Futaba, the town that includes Fukushima Daiichi’s No. 5 and No. 6 reactors, which began operating in 1978 and 1979, respectively.

According to Professor Shimizu of Fukushima University, Fukushima Daiichi and the nearby Fukushima Daini plants directly or indirectly employed some 11,000 people in communities that include Futaba — or about one person in every two households. Since 1974, communities in Fukushima Prefecture have received about $3.3 billion in subsidies for its electrical plants, most of it for the two nuclear power facilities, Mr. Shimizu said.

Despite these huge subsidies, most given in the 1970s, Futaba recently began to experience budget problems. As they did in Kashima, the subsidies dwindled along with other revenues related to the nuclear plant, including property taxes. By 2007, Futaba was one of the most fiscally troubled towns in Japan and nearly went bankrupt. Town officials blamed the upkeep costs of the public facilities built in the early days of flush subsidies and poor management stemming from the belief that the subsidies would remain generous.
...
The peninsula’s first reactor went online in 2005, two are under construction, and two more are still being planned. Japan is also building massive nuclear waste disposal and reprocessing facilities there....

By MARTIN FACKLER and NORIMITSU ONISHI
The New York Times www.NYTimes.com
May 30, 2011
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world/asia/31japan.html

Are There Rebound Effects from Energy Efficiency? – An Analysis of Empirical Data, Internal Consistency, and Solutions

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dgoldstein/Rebound-5-7-2011-FINAL.pdf
Of the rigorously-framed hypotheses claiming that large negative rebounds exist, we measure them against the data, which refute the hypotheses. Rebounds at the end-use level are small and decrease over time. Rebounds at the economy-wide level are trivially small, and might well be a net positive.

Every few years, a new report emerges that tries to resurrect an old hypothesis: that energy efficiency policy paradoxically increases the amount of energy we consume. This paper attempts to develop a rigorous and scientifically sound hypothesis for rebound theory. It shows that many of the hypotheses on which the recent papers promoting rebound effects are based are neither scientific nor testable. Further, the formulations of previous rebound hypotheses are biased toward only discovering negative second order effects of efficiency policies. We provide an unbiased formulation of rebound theory and call for balanced research into both positive and negative second order effects.

Of the rigorously-framed hypotheses claiming that large rebounds exist, we measure them against the data. The data refute the hypotheses. Rebounds at the end use level are small and are decreasing over time. Rebounds at the economy-wide level are trivially small, and very well might be a net positive effect.
We then assess the rebound theorists‘ solutions to climate change. We find some of the solutions inconsistent with rebound theory itself. We also find that regardless of the extent to which rebound theory may be true, once an emissions cap is instituted, efficiency policies only enhance that solution.

Last, we analyze the qualitative nature of rebounds and find that they are largely providing basic energy services to low income communities and those in developing countries. Rebound theorists have yet to explain how recommendations of less reliance on energy efficiency does not require maintenance of lower standards of living for many poor and developing populations around the world.
...
A. Micro Level Data Do Not Support Large Rebounds
The data show that rebounds are small, diminishing over time, and difficult to measure. ―[E]mpirical evidence suggests that the size of the rebound effect is very small to moderate.‖41 Further, ―most of the direct energy savings from technical improvements in energy efficiency in OECD countries remain even after the direct rebound effect is accounted for. These findings from a U.S. Department of Energy and International Energy Agency combined study provide the most comprehensive data and analysis on rebounds. The study found rebound effect of 0 percent for residential appliances, 0-2 percent for commercial lighting, and 5-12 percent for residential lighting.  Given that utility energy efficiency programs, research and development, and codes and standards have focused heavily in these sectors and end uses, these results carry great explanatory weight. Additionally, the data showed a rebound effect of 0-20 percent for industrial processes, 10-30 percent for residential space heating, <10 percent-40 percent for residential water heating, and 0-50 percent for residential space cooling.44 In transportation, EPA and DOT conducted a thorough and comprehensive survey of rebound estimates and found that in 2000-2004 the rebound effect in transportation was 6 percent, and ultimately proposed to use a 10 percent rebound estimate.  These data demonstrate that to the extent rebounds occur, they are small.

The empirical evidence reveals that in addition to being small, rebounds are diminishing with time. As efficiency increases, the rebound effect decreases because: (1) energy costs as a share of total costs decreases, decreasing sensitivity to energy prices; (2) incomes increase, decreasing


B. Macro Level
1. Survey of the Data Does Not Support Rebound Theory
The data at the macro level show that rebound is trivially small, at rebound theory‘s best, and some data suggest the second order effects could be positive, at rebound theory‘s worst. The dearth of data at the macroeconomic or economy-wide level is greater than micro-level data.  The most comprehensive survey of  the literature shows that the economy-wide rebound effect is about 0.5 percent. In other words, ―more than 99 percent of the direct energy savings from energy efficiency improvements remain after the economy-wide effects are taken into account.

2. State Comparison Data Does Not Support the Rebound Theory
Given the rebound Hypothesis C: ―energy efficiency gains from policy will increase energy consumption above where it would be assuming the difference between proposed efficiency versus constant efficiency,‖ we can test it on an economy-wide level. The results refute it.

California embarked on a broad set of policy reforms to encourage efficiency and promote renewable energy in 1974, and has continued since. The California Energy Commission has estimated the cumulative electricity savings produced by these policies, using conservative assumptions, at about 15 percent of load..... The reduction in electricity use compared to the rest of the US is not smaller than what the policies were estimated to produce, it is greater. It is approximately four times as great. In addition to being 400 percent of expected results, realized savings are not compared here to a base case of roughly constant efficiency but compared to a base case of other states, some of which are also pursuing efficiency policies and all of which save energy due to spillover effects of California policies on efficiency.

Similar, but about 50 percent smaller, results are documented for New York State.
...
by David B. Goldstein 1, Sierra Martinez 2, and Robin Roy 3
1. co-directs the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Energy Program. He was instrumental in developing energy efficiency standards for new buildings and appliances in the US, Russia, Kazakhstan, and China. He received a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of California at Berkeley, is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the recipient of its Leo Szilard Award for Physics in the Public Interest. He received a MacArthur Fellowship in 2002.
2. Energy attorney at NRDC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School and has guest lectured at UC Berkeley School of Law on energy regulation and the environment.
 3. Director of Building Energy and Clean Energy Strategy at NRDC. He was formerly Project Director & Fellow at Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment. Dr. Roy received a PhD in Civil Engineering from Stanford University.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) www.NRDC.gov

Residents clued in to recycling - Schenectady undertakes a campaign to change the way it handles trash disposal - Times Union

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Residents-clued-in-to-recycling-1344330.php
... Anthony Verrigni, ... of the city's waste collection team, walked door-to-door in the Bellevue neighborhood....

He and other workers were delivering informational booklets that officials hope will convince residents to raise the city's abysmal recycling rate, which stands at only 8 percent of the total annual trash haul.
...
Verrigni will have to come up with something original to serenade the city's new educational program, which hopes to elevate recycling rates above 20 percent to save taxpayers up to $400,000 on waste hauling costs.

The city originally considered going to a single-stream system, whereby Schenectady would provide large cans to each household that would require no sorting. But at a cost of $1.5 million just to buy the cans, and little room on some narrow streets to hold them, re-educating the population about recycling is currently the only option, said Commissioner of General Services Carl Olsen. When Schenectady started picking up recycling in 1992, trash waste was reduced by 25 percent. Olsen blames the city for stopping educational efforts, which are essential when dealing with an urban transient population. 'If people have the information, most people will comply,' he said.

This week, waste collection workers are hand-delivering recycling booklets to about 2,000 households in the Bellevue and Mont Pleasant neighborhoods. The city will determine if recycling increases in those areas and adjust the educational program as it moves to other areas. The materials will be given to kids at bus stops to take home to their parents. A waste department Twitter account has even been created to keep residents abreast of the campaign.
...
Read the city of Schenectady's new recycling booklet at www.cityofschenectady.com. Follow the recycling educational program on Twitter at schenectadywastedept.

By LAUREN STANFORTH
The Albany Times Union http://www.timesunion.com
April 20, 2011
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Residents-clued-in-to-recycling-1344330.php

Conspicuous Conservation: The Prius Effect and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Bona Fides

http://tiny.cc/b01kn
“The wish to become proper objects of this respect, to deserve and obtain this credit and rank among our equals, may be the strongest of all our desires.” - Adam Smith

1 Introduction
Veblen explained in 1899 that “in order to gain and hold the esteem of man it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence.” Since then, a considerable economics literature has explored the concept of conspicuous consumption and its implications in various settings, with particular focus on purchases that signal prestige, luxury and exclusivity. While consumption of luxurious automobiles, jewelry and apparel surely still afford desired social status in the 21st Century, evolving social norms suggest esteem can be attained through the demonstration of certain kinds of austerity–specifically austerity that minimizes the environmental impact of consumption. In fact, amid heightened concern about environmental damage and global climate change, costly private contributions to environmental protection increasingly confer status once afforded only through ostentatious displays of wastefulness. Consumers may, therefore, undertake costly actions in order to signal their type as environmentally friendly or “green.” The status conferred upon demonstration of environmental friendliness is sufficiently prized that homeowners are known to install solar panels on the shaded sides of houses so that their costly investments are visible from the street. [The authors] call this behavior “conspicuous conservation.”

Home solar panel installation and car ownership decisions are two of the most visible consumption decisions households make. Since the introduction of the Toyota Prius in the U.S. in 2001, a growing number of vehicle models have been introduced with features that reduce environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. They include small and light cars with conventional engines (like the SmartCar), alternative fuel cars (like the Chevrolet flex-fuel fleet), and hybrid cars (like the Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid, and others). Until the reintroduction of the Honda Insight in 2010, the Prius was the only model that at once provided the standard features consumers are accustomed to in modern vehicle design (climate control, four doors, luggage space, etc.), environmental amenities, and a design unique to the model.2

Today Prius is the clear leader among 24 different hybrid models available in the U.S. In fact, 48% of the 290,271 hybrid cars sold in the U.S. in 2009 were Priuses. The success of the Prius can certainly be attributed to an aggressive and innovative marketing effort by Toyota and to the equity in the Toyota brand. However, national marketing effort does not explain why ownership increases in green communities disproportionately relative to other hybrid cars, conditional on the green attributes of the models. It does not explain why, for instance, Toyota Camry Hybrid ownership does not increase proportional to the Prius after conditioning on green attributes. Likewise, the Civic Hybrid achieves a green rating that is nearly identical to the Prius from a number of sources, ... yet the Civic is underrepresented in green locales.

The unique design of the Prius is not accidental. Toyota executives instructed their designers to develop something unique, regardless of the quality of the styling. ...

Using preferred specifications [the authors] estimate that the mean willingness to pay in Colorado (where the mean Democratic party share is 0.303) for the Prius Halo is between $1,402.84 and $4,208.53. In Washington, where the Democratic party share is 0.53, [they] estimate the mean willingness to pay is between $430.45 and $1,291.34.... In Boulder, Colorado, where the Democratic party share is 0.55, the WTP is estimated to be between $1,875.80 and $7,186.67.

Conclusion
Using market-level data on vehicle ownership in Colorado and Washington, we have empirically identified a significant conspicuous conservation effect related to Toyota Prius demand. Such effects have been the subject of theory and discussion, but to our knowledge have not heretofore been tested empirically. [The] results suggest that, depending on their location, consumers are willing to pay up to several thousand dollars to signal their environmental bona fides through their car choices. Competitive altriusm, i.e. the social signaling motive, may, therefore, provide a strong impetus toward private provision of public environmental goods via purchase of impure public goods in the green market.

by Steven E. Sexton and Alison L. Sexton
www.Trisexton.com
April 21, 2011
via/hat tip www.Env-Econ.net

Quality-of-Life, Psychological, and Cost Outcomes 2 Years After Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31820d1338

Abstract:
Objective: To examine the association between clinical and socioeconomic variables and their influence on psychological and cost outcomes in patients with occupational asthma (OA).
Methods: Longitudinal study of 60 subjects who claimed compensation for OA in Quebec. Besides clinical markers of asthma, quality of life (QOL), psychological distress (PD) measures, and an instrument to diagnose mental disorders were used.
Results: The QOL and PD parameters had moderate correlations with clinical markers of OA. Asthma severity, employment, marital status, income, and the length of employment with the employer showed the strongest associations with QOL and PD. More-impaired QOL was associated with higher direct costs for compensation. Conclusion: Impaired QOL and PD are frequent among subjects with OA receiving compensation and are associated with clinical markers of OA and socioeconomic factors

by David Miedinger, MD; Kim Lavoie, PhD; Jocelyne L’Archevêque, MT; Heberto Ghezzo, PhD; Maria Victoria Zunzunuegui, PhD; and Jean-Luc Malo, MD
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Volume 53, Issue 3; March, 2011; pages 231–238 

Do people habituate to air pollution? Evidence from international life satisfaction data

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911003880 
Abstract: Air pollution constitutes one of the main environmental problems in many countries. This paper uses the life satisfaction approach to environmental valuation (LSA) to investigate whether individuals habituate to air pollution and if a potential habituation effect influences the marginal rate of substitution between air quality and income. My estimation results, based on a data set of 48 countries spanning the period 1990 to 2006, indicate that individuals do not habituate to pollution with particulate matter. Rather, I find that even past pollution levels reduce current utility. This effect tends to increase the value of pollution abatement.

by Tobias Menz; Department of Economics, University of Oldenburg, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany; Tel.: + 49 441 798 4105; fax: + 49 441 798 4116.
Ecological Economics via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 71, Issue 15; November, 2011; Pages 211-219
Keywords: Environmental quality; Non-market valuation; Marginal rate of substitution; Happiness; Life satisfaction; Well-being; Habituation; Adaptation