A Note from Our General Manager:
Feeling stuffed?
Coalition aims to cull tax money to preserve land
Tax Credit Opportunities For solar and energy efficiency
Power Struggle

From the Manager

So 2006 begins with a declaration by the President of the United States  that Americans are "addicted to petroleum." Sorta wild to hear that is it not? Well first of all he should have said the world or at least the entire developed world is addicted to oil not just North America.

We still feel a weaning away from the current oil-based world economy must come as a building wave slowly and steady and from more than one modality than just hybrids or battery electrics or hydrogen or ethanol or nuclear or water or wind or solar water or solar electrics or coal--they must all contribute to get the developed world away from a dependence on 10 or so countries who currently set the energy standard for billions of people due to their luck to be positioned where oil formed.

But to hear these words from the leader of a super power cannot hurt and of course the Energy Policy Act EPACT of 05 is now law and should be read by you or your accountant if you harbor any designs on building a commercial building in this or succeeding years because the tax credit is quite liberal for incorporating renewables into the design. Please see our Article 3 for a brief synopsis of the offerings of this law. The IRS should soon have a publication available as well giving the letter of the law.

The  other articles for this newsletter are various.
We are a bit late in sending to you but the first article, Feeling Stuffed, about recycling is good for the beginning or anytime of year. It always amazes me what some of my neighbors put out in the trash. Much of trash can be composted, recycled, or taken to the local metals recycling facility(for dollars).

The second article, Coalition aims to cull tax money to preserve land, speaks of a possible unique approach to set up a quasi government authority to purchase land in central Florida(where we live)to prevent total urban sprawl and leave a few areas for non-human earth participants, both plant and animal, to live in this  sub-tropical area of many different species.

The fourth article, Power Struggle, speaks of how a true Republican, Mr Schwarzenegger, is pushing California to attempt alternatives to the grid to promote more energy independence.

We will say that we may or may not agree with all the views and expressions of the writers of these articles but we find the discussion useful.

Happy Early Spring '06 from Florida and thanks for reading,
Porter
General Manager

Feeling stuffed?

Your home's growing appetite needs to be controlled. It's time to go on a clutter-free diet.
Lisa Gutierrez the Kansas City Star

January 29, 2006

Do you need a fresh start around the house? Let take a look at what to recycle.

Recycle it

Old towels and blankets. Donate to your local humane society. Some use towels and blankets in good condition to dry off dogs and wrap animals after surgery; some also take donations of newspapers, which are used to line the bottom of cat and puppy cases; others also accept used manila filing folders.

Used musical instruments. Donate to the Salvation Army. "We have taken in some real pieces of junk," says the group's divisional music director, Tom Carr. But the army fixes them up and uses them to teach music to local children who can't afford to rent or buy their own instruments. Especially needed: brass instruments, guitars, other stringed instruments and woodwinds. (Pianos and organs pose moving and storage problems, but ask anyway.)

Sell to a music store that buys used instruments, but first know the rules.
Because many stores rent used instruments to schoolchildren, they buy only ones that meet school requirements. For instance, many schools insist the instrument have a brand name and not be made in China because of quality issues, says Bob Cox, owner of Antioch Music Center in Gladstone, Mo. You also must show a picture ID and proof of ownership. Find out if there are any limitations on what the store will take. Cox, for example, will take an instrument that is playable or fixable, except accordions and some cheaper guitars.

Old sneakers. Send to Nike. Through its Reuse-a-Shoe program, Nike grinds up old sneakers to make athletic surfaces, such as football fields, running tracks and playgrounds (nike.com). Recycling centers might also accept donations for  the program.
Wanted: running shoes, cross-trainers, aerobic shoes of any brand, dry and mud-free.

Eyeglasses. Pass them on. The Lions Club Recycle for Sight program (lionsclubs.org) collects used prescription glasses for people who can't afford them.

Books. Sell them. Know the guidelines. Many are similar to what Tom Shawver, owner of Bloomsday Books in Kansas City, requires: Books must be in good condition, which means no underlined passages or dog-eared pages, and hardcovers must have dust jackets. Easy to sell: hardcover nonfiction, such as historical and architectural tomes. Harder to sell: paperback fiction. Expect in-trade credit or cash.

Donate them. Obviously, your nearby library would be a good place to donate your books, but call first. Also, many nursing homes will take your old books (and magazines), but again, call first to find out whether they want what you have.

Don't use them as a dumping ground.
Old magazines. Leave them in a coin-operated laundry. We checked with a few around town where the workers said they wouldn't mind if you dropped them off for customers to read.

Give them away at freecycle.org. Special-interest magazines such as Mother Earth
News and Utne Reader are especially popular. Some people will even come to your house and pick them up. (Keep that Web address handy. The Freecycle Network is a worldwide grass-roots effort among people who want to give and get stuff  for free in their hometowns; handy to know when you're editing your household goods.)

Cell phones. Donate them. The Call to Protect project (donateaphone.com; 202-785-0081) refurbishes used cell phones and sells them to raise money for new ones to give to groups serving victims of domestic violence. (Call to see if there are any local drop-off locations.)

Sports equipment. Donate to Big Brothers Big Sisters. Contact your local branch.

Unused gift sets. Re-gift them. Some nursing homes will accept unopened bath oils, bubble bath and other toiletries; think of all those pretty gift sets you have never used. The home may give them to residents or sell them in a gift shop.

Coalition aims to cull tax money to preserve land
Kevin Spear and David Damron
Orlando Sentinel Staff Writers

January 26, 2006

Central Florida should move swiftly to create a $1 billion-a-year land authority to buy the last "jewels" of natural lands, a coalition of civic leaders and conservationists proposed Wednesday.

Such a powerful authority, they said, might be the last chance to spare the region from becoming an endless and unattractive grid of subdivisions, commercial strips and traffic lights.

Charles Lee, director of advocacy for Audubon of Florida, said the land authority could operate much like an airport or road authority. It would have a governing board and be funded with a portion of taxes on property or real-estate transactions.

The idea is just a proposal and would need legislative approval, which backers hope to pursue by next year. It is an ambitious plan that faces an uphill battle. But the proposal signals a growing urgency to step up conservation programs in the face of the region's booming growth.

"The pace of development is simply moving so rapidly that unless we have a tool to respond with, it's pretty much over for the ecosystem," Lee said. "What  we see as green now will go under pavement."

Backers of the idea, including the Metropolitan Center for Regional Studies at the University of Central Florida and a regional leadership group called myregion.org, already have a campaign under way to protect seven natural land areas -- from the Wekiva River to the Kissimmee Prairie.
Those groups are calling on residents, visitors, businesses and elected officials to support stepped-up acquisition programs but have fretted over the limited dollars available.

The price is high Traditional methods of land purchases, through government agencies and  some environmental groups, have almost no chance of keeping up with skyrocketing real-estate prices and the pace of development, proposal authors said Wednesday.
Aside from purchasing property, a land authority could also oversee a program that encourages growth in more populated areas while shielding valuable environments.
"I do think we have to be creative," said Mike Knight, manager for Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands.

Linda Chapin, Orange County's first elected chairman and now director of the UCF Metropolitan Center for Regional Studies, said local leaders might balk at contributing money and power to such a large regional agency. "But it's critical that we do it," said Chapin, adding that surveys have found Central Florida residents are willing to support land-buying because they are anxious about destructive sprawl. Plan has some support   A land authority would require a swell of local and vocal backing – not easy to accomplish.

TAX CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLAR
AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

reprinted from Florida Solar Energy Center website:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/EPAct-05.htm

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) is the first effort of the United States government to address U.S. energy policy since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Among many other things, the 1724 page law provides new tax incentives for a number of solar and energy efficiency measures.

Among them are:

* Tax credits for residential solar photovoltaic and hot water heating systems

* Tax deductions for highly efficient commercial buildings

* Tax credits for highly-efficient new homes

* Tax credits for improvements to existing homes including high-efficiency air conditioners and equipment

* Tax credits for residential fuel cell systems

* Tax credits for fuel cell and microturbines used in a business.

The complete conference bill for the Energy Policy Act may be downloaded at www.fsec.ucf.edu. The solar and energy efficiency provisions are found in Title XIII, Subtitle C, beginning on page 1332 through page 1390 of the act.

An Important Distinction
There is an important difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit.

A tax deduction is subtracted from income before total tax liability is computed. On the other hand, a tax credit is subtracted directly from the total tax liability. This means that a deduction and a credit have very different values, with a credit being 3 or more times more advantageous to the taxpayer than a deduction. For example, a tax credit of $1,000 for someone in the 28% tax bracket is equivalent to a tax deduction of $3,571.

Combined Incentives
In many cases, multiple tax incentives may be claimed. In the case of a new home for example, the builder may claim credit for the high efficiency home and the homeowner may claim tax credits for solar hot water and photovoltaic and fuel cell systems. Other financial incentives, such as utility or SunBuilt rebates, further reduce the cost of building or owning a solar and energy efficient home.

Solar Photovoltaic and Hot Water Systems
This provision offers tax credits to individuals for residential solar energy systems.

* For solar hot water systems, the allowable tax credit is 30% of the qualified solar system expenditures up to a maximum tax credit limitation of $2,000.

* For solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, the allowable tax credit is 30% of the qualified PV system expenditures up to a maximum tax credit limitation of $2,000.

To be eligible for the solar hot water system tax credit, the system must be certified by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC) or the Florida Solar Energy Center (in the case of systems manufactured or sold in Florida) and produce 50% or more of the hot water needed by the residence. There is no qualification provided for PV systems (except in Florida, where systems must be rated and ceritified by the Florida Solar Energy Center). Individuals may claim tax credits for either or both types of solar systems.

The incentives apply to equipment placed in service during 2006-2007.

In addition, the provisions of the bill substantially increases the business investment tax credit from 10% to 30%. This tax credit is available to businesses that purchase solar thermal and PV systems during calendar years 2006 and 2007. In Florida, such systems would be subject to the requirement that solar systems manufactured or sold in the state be certified by the Florida Solar Energy Center. This business investment tax credit for solar equipment does not have a maximum credit limit.

Additional information on solar systems that my qualify for these tax credits may be found at the following Web sites:

Solar hot water systems: www.fsec.ucf.edu/solar/
Photovoltaic (PV) systems: www.fsec.ucf.edu/pvt/

Commercial Buildings
This provision offers business taxpayers a deduction of $1.80 per square foot for commercial buildings that achieve a 50% reduction in annual energy cost to the user, compared to a base building defined by the industry standard ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001. Energy costs refer only to heating, cooling, lighting and water heating, since only these uses are within the scope of the ASHRAE standard and within the control of the building designer.

Each of the three energy-using systems of the building - the envelope, the heating, cooling and water heating system, and lighting system – is eligible for one third of the incentive if it meets its share of the whole-building savings goal. Explicit interim compliance procedures are provided for lighting.

Eligible buildings include commercial buildings such as: offices, retail buildings, warehouses, etc., rental housing of four stories or more, and publicly-owned buildings. For publicly-owned buildings, there is an interesting provision allowing the credit to pass through to the "person primarily responsible for designing the building."

New construction in an existing building is also eligible for the tax deduction, with one third of the deduction amount for new construction that affects the new energy-using system (such as lighting or heating, cooling and water heating).

Compliance is determined by third party inspectors who review the plans and the actual in-place construction.

Energy savings are determined by software that must be certified by the Department of Energy as meeting criteria of consistency and accuracy, following the successful experience of California's performance-based energy code enforcement.

The incentives apply to buildings or systems placed in service during 2006-2007, although extenders increasing the eligibility through 2009 or 2010 are a distinct possibility. (see colloquia)
New Homes

This provision offers homebuilders a tax credit of $2,000 for homes that reduce energy use for heating and cooling only (not hot water) by 50% compared to the national model code - the 2004 IECC Supplement (assuming an SEER-13 air conditioner). Producers of manufactured homes can also choose to qualify for a tax credit of $1,000 for homes that save 30%. This $1,000 credif for reaching 30% savings is not available for site built homes, which must reach the 50% savings tier to qualify for the $2,000 credit.

Eligible homes must demonstrate savings using software that has been approved by DOE and builders must demonstrate compliance by the use of third-party inspectors certified according to DOE rules. While no interim rules have yet been promulgated to meet these requirements, similar standards exist in Florida and elsewhere under the auspices of Florida's Building Energy Rating System and under the national standards of the national Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET).

Additionally, the Florida Solar Energy Center has released a free 60-day trial version of software that makes the calaulations that are expected to be used for tax credit qualification. To download this free 60-day trial software click here.

The incentives apply to homes placed in service during 2006-2007, although extenders increasing the eligibility through 2009 are a possibility.
Existing Homes

These provisions offer cost-based incentives of 10% of the amount expended by the taxpayer for "Qualified Energy Efficiency Improvements" and up to $300 for "Qualified Energy Property" up to a maximum credit limit of $500.
"Qualified Energy Efficiency Improvements" are specifically defined as:

* Any insulation material or system specifically designed to reduce heat loss or gain

* Exterior windows (including skylights)

* Exterior doors

* Any metal roof having pigmented coatings specifically designed to reduce heat gain which meet Energy Star program requirements.
"Qualified Energy Property" is defined as:

* Electric heat pump water heater with EF of 2.0 or greater

* Electric air source heat pumps with HSPF of 9.0 or greater

* Geothermal heat pumps:

o Closed loop products with EER of 16.2 and COP of 3.3 or greater

o Open loop products with EER of 14.1 and COP of 3.3 or greater

o Direct expansion (DX) products with EER of 15 and COP of 3.5 or greater

* Central air conditioner that receives the highest efficiency tier established by the Consortium of Energy Efficiency as of January 1, 2006

* Natural gas, propane or oil water heater with EF or 0.80 or greater

* Natural gas, propane or oil furnace or hot water boiler with AFUE of 95% or greater

* Advanced main air circulating fan used in natural gas, propane or oil furnace that uses no more than 2% of the total annual energy use of the furnace.
Credit limitations on qualified energy property are as follows:

* $50 for any advanced main air circulating fan

* $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler

* $300 for any item of qualified energy property.
The incentives apply to improvements and equipment placed in service during 2006-2007.

Residential Fuel Cells
This provision offers cost-based 30% tax credits to individuals for qualified residential fuel cell property expenditures up to a maximum credit limitation of $500 for each 500 watts installed capacity.

The incentives apply to equipment placed in service during 2006-2007.
Fuel Cells and Microturbines Used in a Business This provision offers tax credits for fuel cells and microturbines used in a business. To qualify for the credit, fuel cells are required to be 500 watt capacity or greater with a generation efficiency of 30% or greater.

Microturbines are required to be of 2,000 kilowatt capacity or less with an efficiency of 26% at International Standards Organization conditions.

Tax credits and limitations are as follows:

* For fuel cells, a tax credit of 30% of the expenditure up to a maximum of $500 per 500 watts of capacity.

* For microturbines, a tax credit of 10% of the expenditure with a credit limitation of $200/kW.

The incentives apply to equipment placed in service during 2006-2007.

"Power Struggle"
Charles Petit
Nature Magazine November '05

For decades, California has bucked the US trend of gobbling ever more electricity. But can the state pull off an even more ambitious goal and slash its greenhouse-gas emissions? Charles Petit finds out.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a mission: he wants to terminate global warming.

In June, the California governor called for the state to slash its greenhouse-gas emissions to 80% of 1990 levels in the next 45 years. "The debate is over," he said in a forthright speech in San Francisco. "We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now."

This was fighting talk, but if any advanced economy can pull off such drastic cuts in emissions, this high-technology Pacific Rim state and its 36 million residents probably can. Schwarzenegger has help. His muscle for the job is a team of state energy-conservation experts who have been in the business for years. And first among them is his polar opposite: a short, skinny physicist named Arthur Rosenfeld. More than three decades ago, Rosenfeld helped to trigger the state's successful fight to cut energy consumption; today he is one of the five members of California's Energy Commission.

Rosenfeld was Enrico Fermi's last graduate student and he spent decades as a physics professor at the Univeristy of California, Berkeley. He now commutes weekly between his home overlooking San Francisco Bay and Sacramento, the capital, in an energy-saving Prius hybrid sedan that the state provides. The Energy Commission's job isn't easy: to help the most populous US state figure out how it might cut greenhouse-gas emissions and make money doing it.

Under Control
In his office, Rosenfeld pulls out a data plot of which he is particularly fond. It shows electricity consumption per capita from 1960 to 2002, with one line for California and one for the United States. In 1960, both lines sit at 4,000 kilowatt-hours per person. They rise at roughly the same pace to about 7,000 kilowatt-hours in the early 1970's. But at the point when the US energy crisis struck that decade, the lines diverge dramatically: California virtually flatlines its energy use per citizen- even though its economy was outpacing the rest of the nation. The state's electricity use per capita today is the lowest in the nation at 6,800 kilowatt-hours, compared with 12,800 kilowatt-hours for the country overall.

The strategies that helped California achieve those conservation goals may now help it in its greenhouse-gas cuts. State energy experts, including Rosenfeld, don't foresee California adopting many radical new technologies to meet its ambitious goals. Rather, a steady application of proven technologies should do much of the job.

California's $1.5-trillion gross annual product makes it the world's sixth largest economy, behind France and ahead of Italy. It is the planet's ninth-largest emitter of greenhouse-gases. "California is not an insignificant actor, and we are seen as a world leader in protecting the environment," says Eileen Tutt, a senior officer at the California Environmental Protection Agency. "Not to take action sends a very strong signal."

Still, the governor's pledge, made on the United Nations World Environment Day, caused more than a few jaws to drop. Schwarzenegger is a tax-cutting Republican who owns several fuel-slurping Hummers and is deeply suspicious of government regulation. Beset by budget fights and union opposition, he has sagged in popularity with the state's generally Democratic voters since his election two years ago. But his energy policies, building on those of a string of governors of both parties, get him kudos from longtime activists. "The governor is a real-life climate action hero today," Nancy Ryan, a senior economist with the group Environmental Defense, told reporters after his speech.

Specifically, Schwarzenegger vowed that California will cut its greenhouse-gas emissions to below 2000 levels by 2010 and to less than the 1990 level of 373 million tonnes by 2020. But then the governor added the final, ambitious goal to cut emissions by a further 80% by 2050.

Out on a Limb
His policy stands in stark contrast to that of the federal administration under President George W. Bush, who has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The president has said that such action would squeeze the US economy too much. California officials say that they can do it while boosting the economy and creating  jobs. The state's strong environmental policies in the past, they point out, ovvurred while its economy thrived.

Success will require the cooperation of several interlocking agencies. The Energy Commission's plays a major role, as do the state's Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board and Public Utilities Commission.

Schwarzenegger's proclamation renewed their "absolute licence to go out and make California a model country for greenhouse policies," says Stephen Schneider, a physicist and climate-policy analyst at Stanford University.

State officials have much at stake. California's climate could change utterly if a warmer world redirected storm paths. Rising temperatures could cause winter rain instead of snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains, triggering floods for which the state's aqueducts and dams are not prepared. Plus, its coast is vulnerable to a rise in sea level.

Other states have a lso recognized their vulnerability to climate change, and have independently taken climate policy into their own hands. Local legislators, from mayors of cities to state governors, have begun their own versions of Kyoto-like regulations. In the northeast,nine states have agreed to cap carbon dioxide emissions from more than 600 power plants in the region. On the west coast, California has joined with Oregon and Washington in a governors' initiative to encourage energy efficiency and conservation.

But of all the states, California has set itself up as a model of how diligent attention to efficiency can take root and pay off. Its example has caught on: in recent years many other states have adopted California's standards for car pollution rather than the more lax federal standards.

And the state is now attracting international attention. In September, its Public Utitlites Commission, Energy Commission, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company signed a pact with China's Jiangsu province to train officials and utility executives in energy-conservation tactics. Earlier this month, Schwarzenegger led a sales delegation to China to tout the state's energy-saving technologies, and another team from the state's Air Resources Board travelled to Belgium to brief European air-quality experts on energy policies.

California's approach to energy conservation has helped it save money. The state sets electricity rates for private utilities, and sometimes provides subsidies to help power companies induce customers to cut their consumption. If they do, the state gives money back to the companies- through rate adjustments and other payments- that makes up for what the firms would have earned had they built additional power plants.

The Energy Commission calculates that the toal power bill for residents is about $16 billion lower each year than if the state had not launched its conservation campaign. Conservation has also managed to prevent some 18 million tonnes of carbon pollution being emitted from power plants- equivalent to taking 12 million cars off the raods. After allowing for the cost of measures such as changed building practices, appliances, and subsidies, the net saving is about $12 billion. And deeper energy cuts should pay more, the commission syas. The Air Resources Board estimates that planned reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, from motor vehicles alone, could save Californians $256 million annualy by 2010 (mostly from smaller fuel bills) and $4.8 billion annualy by 2020.

Cut and Dried?
But will the state's longer-term emissions policy succeed? Schneider is unsure how cost effective the whole plan will be. Earlier stages may pay for themselves, he says, but the final leap to the 80% cut is unlikely to come without costs. "It would take a total revamp of our fuel infrastructure," he notes.

So far, even state planners aren't sure how they will beet the later goals. "We don't have the details, but we'll have a report the governor's office in January," says Tutt.

Some fresh ideas our already in the works. One notion, set out by Schwarzenegger's administration, is to place 1 million solar panel systems on rooftops by 2018.

California gets about 11% of its electricity from geothermal, wind, biomass and solar units; for the United States overall, the number is around 2%. California aims to increase its share of renewable sources to 20% by 2010 and to 33% by 2020.

Also helpful will be the vehicle clean-up legislation enacted just before Schwarzenegger's arrival. This requires car manufacturers, starting in 2009, to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from new cars and trucks by 22% by 2013 and 33% by 2017. But the law remains in dispute- perhaps predictably, car companies have sued.

They argue that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and that regulating it at state levelwould pre-empt federal control over the fuel-efficiency standards in new cars. In the long run, the governor has chosen hydrogen-fuelled cars as his personal crusade.

Wind power figures large in state plans. California pioneered wide-scale use of it and already has more than 14,000 wind turbines. In a good breeze their combined capacity is 2,100 megawatts- about the same as two nuclear power plants. State energy officials estimate that wind alone, in principle, can generate an additional 30,000 megawatts.

Fuel For Thought
The rest of the renewable energy would probably come from beefed-up geothermal, solar and biomass facilities. In recent weeks, the utiltity company serving San Diego contracted to buy another 205.5 megawatts of wind power, and the Los Angeles utitlitty company ordered 500 megawatts of solar power from a complex being built some 120 kilometres northeast of the city. When construction is completed in 2013, this will be the world's largest solar facility and will more than double US solar-energy generation. One energy source that is not on the agenda, despite not emitting greenhouse gases, is nuclear power, which now provides about 10% of the state's electricity. California law forbids the construction of additional nuclear plants until safe, long-term waste storage has been assured.

If Schwarzenegger's emissions-busting goal seems ambitious, Rosenfeld is happy to put it in perspective. He recalls the early days of conservation work when he co-founded a programme in energy-efficient buildings at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The effort spawned what today is an entire Environmental Energy Technologies Division at the lab.

Back then, Rosenfeld's personal project was to make fluorescent lights more efficient. Around the same time, in 1973, state lawmakers formed the California Energy Commission, which was signed into existence by then-governor Ronald Reagan.

In its early days, the commission took almost as gospel any reports from Rosenfeld's group on how to reduce energy demand. In 1978, the state used the team's recommendations as a guide to impose energy requirements on new buildings. Appliance standards came two years later governing such items as gas furnaces, air conditioning, and refrigerators. Today, due largely to such regulations, refrigerators use a third of the electricity and cost about a third as much to buy as in the early 1970's. In contrast to California's efforts, federal standards, such as 'Energy Star' labels for approved appliances, did not arrive until the 1990's.

Energetic Response
The total electricity used for air-conditioning new homes in California is now a third of what it was in the 1970's. And two technologies from the Lawrence Berkeley initiative- the revamped light bulb and window coatings that keep heat out in the summer and in during winter- will save the US economy some $23 billion in utility bills, the National Academy of Sciences has estimated.

Rosenfeld is not done waging war on wasted energy. He is pushing hard for regulations to encourage the use of white roofs, or at least coloured ones, that reflect most near infared radiation. Such cool roofs could save $200 million yearly in air-conditioning costs in Los Angeles alone. He frets over energy "vampires," the trickle of power that modern appliances continue to suck through their plugs even when they are turned off. Such vampires include televisions waiting for a signal from the remote, cable boxes, cordless phones, garage-door openers waiting for a signal and stereos. Standby power, which was insignificant two decades ago, now typically accounts for 10% of a home's electricity use. New technology that gives appliances photons into the void.
Then, Rosenfeld leans forward with a conspiratorial air. "In the next 20 years," he declares,"California will disappear." And that is more efficient standby modes, which California will require as it becomes available, could reduce this by 75%.

"Let me show you something," Rosenfeld says as he pulls out an iconic NASA Satellite image of the Western Hemisphere at night. The US industrial centres blaze like constellations against the black backdrop of the continent. "You are looking at millions of light bulbs," he says in dismay. To Rosenfeld, the necklaces of light are not signs of advanced civilization but of a wastrel society leaking precious into the void.

Then, Rosenfeld leans forward with a conspiratorial air. "In the next 20 years," he declares,"California will disappear." And that is Rosenfeld's dream- that the state will disappear, or at least fade, at night. Rules enacted this year require new lights for streets, parking areas and the like to focus 98% of their illumination on the ground, not into the sky. Once again, Rosenfeld says, the message for California on saving energy is simple: every little bit helps.