Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
While a few states have energy-efficiency strategies, none matches what California has done. In the past three decades, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in high-tech, fast-growing California. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians currently do, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. If the entire nation had California's much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total U.S. global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. And if all of America adopted the same energy-efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another polluting power plant.
How did California do it? In part, a smart California Energy Commission has promoted strong building standards and the aggressive deployment of energy-efficient technologies and strategies -- and has done so with support of both Democratic and Republican leadership over three decades.
Many of the strategies are obvious: better insulation, energy-efficient lighting, heating and cooling. But some of the strategies were unexpected. The state found that the average residential air duct leaked 20 to 30 percent of the heated and cooled air it carried. It then required leakage rates below 6 percent, and every seventh new house is inspected. The state found that in outdoor lighting for parking lots and streets, about 15 percent of the light was directed up, illuminating nothing but the sky. The state required new outdoor lighting to cut that to below 6 percent. Flat roofs on commercial buildings must be white, which reflects the sunlight and keeps the buildings cooler, reducing air-conditioning energy demands. The state subsidized high-efficiency LED traffic lights for cities that lacked the money, ultimately converting the entire state.
Significantly, California adopted regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called "decoupling." It also allowed utilities to take a share of any
Nah... couldn't have anything to do with anything else... just short term conservation
couldn't be that the price of crude dropped, or that speculators keep an eye on the fact that Americans want to drill more while we look for alternative fuel technologies to ACTUALLY be viable in the big picture, etc
what enviro-nazi propaganda
Conserve more... I'm all for it... but it is not why gas has fallen about $0.10 in the past week
Even a Republican should be able to understand why gas prices are starting to fall. Americans, who use and waste more energy than anyone on the planet, started to cut back, and PRESTO! Prices fell.
Look at what Blue State California is doing:
Energy efficiency, electricity, power plants | Salon News
Prices fell? When??? They sure didn't at my house! 
Consuption dropped, lowering demand, thus a lower price.
DUH!
hmmn .... they must live in a different State of California, than I do
My studies in economics would teach me that drivers "cutting back" would decrease demand and increase supply (do to lack of purchases-and additions by plants). However, I also wonder why liberals would go against this same economic theory when conservatives talk about wanting to increase the supply by drilling more. It sounds like many are cherry-picking.
.
Consuption dropped, lowering demand, thus a lower price.
DUH!
The theory is sound. Your numbers, or lack of, are not though. Cutting back can save massive amounts of oil that can never be replaced. Drilling will only bring so much oil to the surface to be used. We possess 3% of the world's known reserves yet use 25% of the oil. You do the math. Where is there more room for improvement, the supply or demand side?
On top of that, with China's economy growing by 10% a year there is no way the world can even think of meeting that demand without serious conservation efforts
The theory is sound. Your numbers, or lack of, are not though. Cutting back can save massive amounts of oil that can never be replaced. Drilling will only bring so much oil to the surface to be used. We possess 3% of the world's known reserves yet use 25% of the oil. You do the math. Where is there more room for improvement, the supply or demand side?
On top of that, with China's economy growing by 10% a year there is no way the world can even think of meeting that demand without serious conservation efforts
