Re: SB: California Energy Standards

[abjordan@pobox.com]

Richard Schmidt wrote:

>Rather than flame California energy standards, perhaps the writer should
>look into the facts.

My point, implicit, was/is that these press writers in effect are/have
distorted the reality, imho.

I think if a longitudinal study was done, the end of the story for
energy conservation measures would be what has been done has little
impact at this point in time.  In other words, all states have been
"foot dragging," and using the per capita argument is non sense.

>While still needing improvement, California's
>building standards are among the most strict around. Its appliance
>standards are so much more strict than the Federal government's that
>California home refrigerators save the equivalent of two 1,000 megawatt
>power plants worth of power, compared to the federal standards.

>For the latest revision to CA building standards, see:

>www.energy.ca.gov/ab970_standards/documents

I was looking at the Gas/Oil fired furnace requirement, which is in red
print with mark out, but the "old" requirement was around 80% AFUE,
which btw, was the government standard, nationwide, back in 1990 or so
for the manufactures.

Hence, nothing new, as compared to other folks in US, with respect to
"old standard," and with respect to the new standard.

Thus, my points are/were that California has enjoyed mild seasons and
has been without heavy industries that consume large amounts of energy.


Hence, I see  a "myth" about per capita consumption, if you extrapolate
this data to the rest of this nation.  I might add that lightening, in
residental areas, usually, does not consume large amounts of energy.  As
most folks know, heating/cooling,  water heaters, refrigeration, and
washer/dryers are the main energy 'hogs' within most homes.

AJ

PS:  Just scanning this document, residential attic insulation in
retro-fits is R-38 (<5,000 heating degree days) and R-30 (>5,000 heating
degree days).  For non-residental, new, I see what I call standard
practices, in the mid west, for roof/walls.  If you were to build
according to these standards in Montana, you would have one hell of a
heating bill.  And even in the mountainous regions, you are lacking
enough insulation.

Hence, per capita is relative to nothing, when you think about it cause
California has enjoyed mild seasons overall, for majority of folks
living there.  Again, my point, this is a myth argument, when explored
in detail.  California may have a few items of interest, but energy
wise, it will take some 50 + years before real savings exist overall
since millions of existing homes will not be required to update.