Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:19:26.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Information, Regulation, and Networks: A Tale of Distributed Generation to Improve Air Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2005

Juliann Emmons Allison  and
Jim Lents
Juliann Emmons Allison
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, California
Jim Lents
Affiliation:
College of Engineering—Center for Sustainable Suburban Development, University of California, Riverside, California
Get access

Abstract

One important result of electric power deregulation in the United States has been a growing potential for small, distributed sources of electrical power that may serve a single home, neighborhood, business, or business complex more efficiently and reliably than centrally located power plants, and at lower cost. The expectation that distributed generation (DG) can provide reliable electrical power more efficiently and less expensively than conventional power plants is complicated, however, by the high levels of air pollution and low efficiency generally associated with the most affordable and accessible DG technologies. Therefore, the prospect of greater reliance on distributed sources of electrical power raises a number of important questions, among them, these: (1) How can a state's energy and environmental regulatory system best encourage the economic success of clean and efficient DG? (2) Exactly which DG technologies are the cleanest and most efficient? (3) What kind of policy is most likely to yield the most favorable level of DG usage in a given state? In answer to these questions, we present the development of DG policy in California as a study in establishing and deepening a network of state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individuals committed to the integration of clean, efficient DG into the state's electric utility system. More specifically, the California Energy Commission, the California Air Resources Board and most local air districts, the California Public Utilities Commission, environmental and professional organizations, DG manufacturers and other businesses, and interested individuals have responded to the rising demand for electricity in the state by advocating clean and efficient DG. Although the many agencies, organizations, and individuals involved in the “clean DG” network have not been overtly identified as such, we argue that administering the currently favored technology-forcing, clean DG policy will require ongoing and pervasive coordination among the members of this nascent network.

Type
FEATURES & REVIEWS
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 16 - 31
Copyright
© 2005 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allison, J. E., and J. Lents. 2002. Creating Distributed Generation Policy to Improve Air Quality: Can We Have Our Cake and Eat It Too? Energy Policy Journal 30:737–752.Google Scholar
Allison, J. E., and J. Lents. 2004. The Four Es of DG Policy in California: Energy, Environment Economics, and Education. 500-03-099F, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, 59 pp.
Associated Press. 2004. Another Enron Executive Pleads Guilty. The Los Angeles Times, 6 August.
Berenson, A. 2002. Mystery of Enron and California's Power Crisis. The New York Times, 9 May.
Burch, G. 2002. Overview of Hybrid Energy Systems—Renewable Fueled. Presentation at International Colloquium on Environmentally Preferred Advanced Power Generation, Newport Beach, CA, 5 February.
California Air Resources Board. 1998. Amendments Identifying Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Resolution 98-35, Sacramento, CA, 7 pp.
California Air Resources Board. 2002. Final Regulation Order: Establish Distributed Generation Certification Order. Executive Order G-02-041, Sacramento, CA, 12 pp.
California Air Resources Board/California Certified Vehicles. 2004. Cleaner Cars for Cleaner Air. http://www.arb.ca.gov. Accessed 15 August.
California Energy Commission. 1995. 1994 Electricity Report. P300-95-002, Sacramento, CA, 29 pp.
California Energy Commission. 2002. Distributed Generation Strategic Plan. P27-02-002, Sacramento, CA, 42 pp.
California Public Interest Research Group Charitable Trust and the Coalition for Clean Air. 2001. The Good, the Bad, and the Other: Public Health and the Future of Distributed Generation. Sacramento, CA, 33 pp.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2001. Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Verification, Consolidation, and Approval of Costs and Revenues in the Transition Revenue Account. Decision 01-09-060, Sacramento, CA, 2 pp.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2002. Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 3338-E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. Decision 02-02-051, Sacramento, CA, 2 pp.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2003. PUC Sets Costs for Self-Generation Energy Customers, Providing Exceptions to Promote Clean Alternative Power. R 02-01-011, Sacramento, CA, 3 pp.
Cappannari, A. 2001. More Evidence of Price-Gouging in California's Energy Market. World Socialist Web Site/News and Analysis: North America. http://www.wsws.org. Accessed 9 June.
Cappannari, A. 2002. From Power Shortage to Power Surplus: California's Energy Debacle Continues. World Socialist Web Site/News and Analysis: North America. http://www.wsws.org. Accessed 4 January.
Carlson, T. 2000. ISO/RTO Perspectives on Distributed Generation. Presentation at the NARUC Western Regional Distributed Resources Workshop, Santa Fe, NM, 15 June.
Carpenter, D. P., K. M. Esterling, and D. M. J. Lazer. 1997. The Structure of Signaling: A Combinatorial Optimization Model with Network Dependent Estimation. Unpublished manuscript, 42 pp.
Carpenter, D. P., K. M. Esterling, and D. M. J. Lazer. 1998. The Strength of Weak Ties in Lobbying: Evidence from Health Care Politics in the United States. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4):417–444.Google Scholar
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies/Issues and Programs: Energy: Power in California. 2004. Clean Distributed Generation Campaign. http://www.ceert.org.
Davis, G. 2001. Proclamation by the Governor of the State of California. Office of the Governor, Sacramento, CA, 2 pp.
Grubb, M., C. Vrolijk, and B. Brack. 1999. The Kyoto Protocol: A Guide and Assessment. Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 342 pp.
Haas, P. M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46(Winter):1–36.Google Scholar
Hall, J. V. 1989. Economic Assessments of the Health Benefits from Improvements in Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Final Report to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, 80 pp.
Heclo, H. 1978. Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In The New American Political System, A. King, ed. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 87–124.
Hirsch, R. 1999. Power Loss: The Origins of Deregulation and Restructuring in the American Electric Utility System. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 406 pp.
John, D. W. 1994. Civic Environmentalism. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, DC, 347 pp.Google Scholar
Kay, M. L., and H. B. Lange. 2004. Proposed New BACT Guidelines for Distributed Generation. DG White Paper 5-19-04, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, 19 pp.
Keck, M. E., and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 227 pp.
König, T. 1998. Introduction: Modeling Policy Networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4):387–389.Google Scholar
König, T., and T. Bräuninger. 1998. The Formation of Policy Networks: Preferences, Institutions, and Actors' Choice of Information and Exchange Relations. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4):445–471.Google Scholar
Lagier, C. 2002. Personal communication. Regional Manager, Northern Power Systems, Irvine, CA, 5 February.
Lauman, E. O., J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael, and S. Michaels, eds. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 718 pp.
Laurie, R. A., and S. Tomashefsky. 2001. California State Energy Policy and the Distributed Generation Paradox. Unpublished manuscript, 21 pp.
Lents, J. 2002. Remarks made as a Program Director of the College of Engineering–Center for Environmental Research and Technology, University of California Riverside. Presentation to CAPCOA/Environmental Task Force, Sacramento, CA, 23 January.
MacCracken, C. N., J. A. Edmonds, S. H. Kim, and R. D. Sands. 1999. The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol. In The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, J. P. Weyant, ed. Energy Journal/International Association for Energy Economics, Cleveland, OH, pp. 73–92.
Melbeck, C. 1998. Comparing Local Policy Networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4):531–552.Google Scholar
Niebauer, D. M., and W. W. Funderburk. 2002. Commission Tries to Balance Needs of Power Users, Utilities. The Daily Journal, 13 November.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 280 pp.
Peevey, M. R., and S. P. Kennedy. 2003. Alternate Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey and Commissioner Kennedy. Alternate Order to ID#1722 Ratesetting, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, 62 pp.
Peterson, P. 1995. The Price of Federalism. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 239 pp.
Peterson, V. S. 2003. A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive, and Virtual Economies. Routledge, New York, 225 pp.
Polakovic, G. 2001. Price for More Megawatts is More Smog Pollution. The Los Angeles Times, 14 June.
Restructuring Today. 2002. CPUC Picks 2.7 Cent Fee for Those Who Shop. Restructuring Today, 8 November.
Rosoff, L., C. Colbert, and R. Earle. 2002. Building Renewable Energy Markets: A Public Education Strategy for State Clean Energy Funds. Clean Energy Group/Clean Energy Funds Network, Montpelier, VT, 83 pp.
Sabatier, P., and H. Jenkins-Smith, eds. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 290 pp.
Samuelsen, S. 2002 Distributed Generation: Power Parks. Presentation at International Colloquium on Environmentally Preferred Advanced Power Generation (ICEPAG), Newport Beach, CA, 5 February.
Schaffhauser, T. 2002. Renewable Energy Resources Technologies. Presentation at International Colloquium on Environmentally Preferred Advanced Power Generation (ICEPAG), Newport Beach, CA, 5 February.
Schlageter, M. 2004. Personal communication. Energy Program Director, Coalition for Clean Air, Riverside, CA, 18 August.
Schneider, M., J. Scholz, M. Lubell, D. Mindruta, and M. Edwardson. 2003. Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science 47(January):143–158.Google Scholar
Schumacher, A. 2003. Personal communication. Project Director, Clean Energy Group, Riverside, CA, 7 July.
Silverstein, A. 2000. Top Priorities for PUCs Regarding Distributed Generation. Presentation at the NARUC Western Regional Distributed Resources Workshop, Santa Fe, NM, 15 June.
Simonelli, J. 2003a. Can Fuel Cells Commercialize in the 21st Century? Unpublished manuscript, 6 pp.
Simonelli, J. 2003b. Letter to Jill Whynot, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 14 May.
Snyder, D., and E. L. Kick. 1979. Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, 1955–1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions. American Journal of Sociology 84(5):1096–1126.Google Scholar
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2004. Notice of Intent to Establish Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Distributed Generation Power Plants. Notice 05-11-04, Sacramento, CA, 2 pp.
Stark, R. 1994. Modernization and Mormon Growth. In A Sociological Analysis of Mormonism, M. Cornwall, T. B. Heaton, and L. Young, eds. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, 1–23.
Stark, R. 1997. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 246 pp.
Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press, New York, 271 pp.
Tomashefsky, S. 2002a. Personal communication. Advisor to Commissioner William J. Keese, California Energy Commission, Riverside, CA, 19 June.
Tomashefsky, S. 2002b. Prepared Supplemental Testimony of Scott Tomashefsky on Behalf of the California Energy Commission. R 02-01-011, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, 11 pp.
Vogel, N. 2000a. Davis Seeks to Cut Electricity Bill Payments. The Los Angeles Times, 10 August.
Vogel, N. 2000b. How State's Consumers Lost with Electricity Deregulation. The Los Angeles Times, 9 December.
Wallerstein, B. R. 2002. Letter to Commissioner Loretta Lynch, President of the California Public Utilities Commission, 30 October.
Weisberg, L. 2000. Energy Gap Foreseen in 1988 Report: Panel's Warning of Growing Need Too Late. San Diego Union Tribune, 27 August.
Wellman, B., and S. Wortley. 1990. Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. American Journal of Sociology 96(3):558–588.Google Scholar
Williams, J. C. 1997. Energy and the Making of Modern California. University of Akron, Akron, OH, 465 pp.
Woolfolk, J. 2000. Energy Crunch Could Foul Air. San Jose Mercury News, 20 August.
Zafonte, M., and P. Sabatier. 1998. Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4):473–505.Google Scholar