JR DeShazo

Professor DeShazo’s research areas are environmental policy and politics.

He advises the Los Angeles City Council, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles Planning Department, among key agencies. His work also supports the California Air Resources Board and the Southern California Association in their effort to implement AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and its complementary SB 375, transportation and land use bill.

JR DeShazo has previously advised the United Nations, UNEP, the World Bank, the European Union, The Central American Bank for Development and Integration, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Tinker Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, RARE, Catholic Relief Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, United States Agency for International Development, and United States Geological Survey.

 

SELECTED BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS

Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests
Description: Tropical forests, especially the primary tropical forests that are globally important for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage, are increasingly concentrated in relatively wealthier developing countries. This creates an opportunity for domestic funding by these countries to play a larger role in (i) closing the funding gap for tropical forest conservation, and (ii) paying for supplementary conservation actions linked to international payments for reduced greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Author: J. Vincent, R. Carson, J. R. DeShazo, K. Schwabe, I. Ahmad, S. Chong, Y. Chang
Publication Link

Demand for Health Risk Reductions
Author: J.R. DeShazo and T.A. Cameron
Description: A choice model based on utility in a sequence of prospective future health states permits us to generalize the concept of the value of statistical life (VSL). Our representative national survey asks individuals to choose between costly risk-reducing programs and the status quo in randomized stated choice scenarios. Our model allows for separate marginal utilities for discounted net income and avoided illness years, post-illness years, and lost life-years. Our estimates permit calculation of overall willingness to pay to reduce risks for a wide variety of different prospective illness profiles. These can be benchmarked against the standard VSL as a special case.
Publication Link
Download file: PDF

Empowering LA’s Solar Workforce: New Policies that Deliver Investments and Jobs
Presented by: LABC Institute, City of Los Angeles, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Global Green USA, UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, and USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.
J.R. DeShazo, Director of the UCLA Luskin Center, and Manuel Pastor and Mirabai Auer of USC’s Program for Environment and Regional Equity, co-authored the report. They presented their findings at UCLA during the Los Angeles Business Council’s annual Mayoral Housing, Transportation and Jobs Summit, which was also attended by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and mayoral hopefuls City Council President Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel and City Councilwoman Jan Perry.
Read more
Download file: PDF

 

Referred Articles – Under Revision

1. “A Comprehensive Assessment of Selection in a Major Internet Panel for the Case of Attitudes toward Government Regulation.” T.A. Cameron and J.R. DeShazo. Survey Methodology. (Revise and re-submit)

2. “Willingness to Pay for Health Risk Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness.” T.A. Cameron and J.R. DeShazo. Journal of Health Economics. (Revise and resubmit)

3. “Subjective Choice Difficulty in Stated Preference Surveys.” Eric Duquette, T.A. Cameron, and J.R. DeShazo.  Journal of Choice Modeling. (Revise and resubmit)

In Print or Forthcoming

4. “Creation of Malaysia’s Royal Belum State Park: A Case Study of Conservation in a Developing Country.” K. Schwabe, R. Carson, J.R. DeShazo, M. Potts, A. Reese, and J. Vincent. Journal of Environment & Development (JED). (Forthcoming)

5. “Designing and Implementing Surveys to Value Tropical Forests: A Malaysian Application.” J.R. DeShazo, R. Carson, K. Schwabe, J. Vincent, I. Ahmad, C. Kook, and C. Tan. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. (Forthcoming)

6. “Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests.” J. Vincent, R. CarsonJ. R. DeShazo, K. Schwabe, I. Ahmad, S. Chong, Y. Chang, and M. Potts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). (July 2014).

7. “Pricing Workplace Charging: Financial Viability and Fueling Costs.” B. Williams and J.R. DeShazo.Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, no. 14-1137. (January 2014)

8. “Willingness to Pay for Public Health Policies to Treat Illnesses.” R. Bosworth, T.A. Cameron, and J.R. DeShazo. Journal of Health Economics. (October 2013)

9. “A multi-stakeholder perspective on the use of alternative test strategies for nanomaterial safety assessment.” Nel, Andre E., Elina Nasser, Hilary Godwin, David Avery, Tina Bahadori, Lynn Bergeson, Elizabeth Beryt, J.R. DeShazo, et al. ACS nano 7, no. 8 (2013): 6422-6433. (August 2013)

10. “Critical Review: Regulatory Incentives and Impediments for Onsite Graywater Reuse in the United States.” Zita Yu, Anditya Rahardianto, J.R. DeShazo, Michael Stenstrom, and Yoram Cohen. Water Environment Research, Volume 85, Number 7, pp. 650-662(13) (July 2013)

11. “Demand for Health Risk Reductions.” T.A. Cameron and J.R. DeShazo. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. (August 2012)

12. “Scenario Adjustment in Stated Preference Research.” T.A. Cameron, J.R. DeShazo, and E.H. Johnson.Journal of Choice Modelling. (November 2010)

13. “Differential Attention to Attributes in Utility-theoretic Choice Models.” T.A. Cameron and J.R. DeShazo. Journal of Choice Modelling. 3(3) 73-115 (November 2010)

14. “Demand for Health Risk Reductions: A Cross-national Comparison between the U.S. and Canada.” T.A. Cameron, J.R. DeShazo, and P. Stiffler. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 41(3) 245-273 (December 2010)

15. “Is An Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Comparing Demand for Public Prevention and Treatment Policies.” R. Bosworth, T.A. Cameron, and J.R. DeShazo. Medical Decision Making. 30(4): E40-E56 (2010)

16. “The Effect of Children on Adult Demands for Health-risk Reductions.” T.A. Cameron, J.R. DeShazo, and E.H. Johnson. Journal of Health Economics. 29(3): 364-376 (May 2010)

17. “Demand for Environmental Policies to Improve Health: Evaluating Community-level Policy Scenarios.”R. Bosworth, T.A. Cameron, and J.R. DeShazo. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.57(3): 293-308 (2009)

18. “The Effect of Consumers’ Real-world Choice Sets on Inferences from a Stated Preference Field Experiment.” J.R. DeShazo, T.A. Cameron, and M. Saenz. Environmental and Resource Economics.42(3):319-343 (2009)

19. “The Environmental Consequences of Decentralizing the Decision to Decentralize.” W.B. Cutter and J.R. DeShazo. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 53 (1): 32-53 (2007)

20. “Activities in Models of Recreational Demand.” W.B. Cutter, L. Pendleton, and J.R. DeShazo. Land Economics. 83(3): 370-381(2007)

21. “Timing and Form of Federal Regulation: The Case of Climate Change.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Freeman.University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 155:1499-1558 (2007)

22. “Evaluation Reforms in the Implementation of Hazardous Waste Policies in California.” W.B. Cutter and J.R. DeShazo. California Policy Options. (2006)

23. “Frontiers in Stated Preferences Methods: An Introduction.” V. Adamowicz and J.R. DeShazo.Environmental and Resource Economics. 34(1): 1-6 (2006)

24. “Congressional Politics.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Freeman. Chapter 6 in “The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise” edited by Dale Goble, J. Michael Scott, Frank W. Davis. Island Press. (2006)

25. “Public Agencies as Lobbyists.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Freeman. Columbia Law Review. 105(8): 2217-2305 (2005)

26. “The Effect of Health Status on Willingness to Pay for Morbidity and Mortality Risk Reductions.” J.R. DeShazo and T.A. Cameron. California Center for Population Research. (2005)

27. “Upgrading Municipal Environmental Services to European Union Levels: A Case Study of Household Willingness to Pay in Lithuania.” R. Bluffstone and J.R. DeShazo. Environment and Development Economics. 8(4): 637-654 (2003)

28. “The Congressional Competition to Control Delegated Power.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Freeman. Texas Law Review. 81(6): 1443-1519 (2003)

29. “Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats.” J.R. DeShazo, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 44(1): 123-143 (2002)

30. “Dissecting the Random Component of Utility.” J. Louvier, R. Carson, A. Anislie, T.A. Cameron, J.R. DeShazo, D. Hensher, R. Kohn, T. Marley, and D. Street. Marketing Letters. 13(3): 177-193 (2002)

31. “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency.” J.R. DeShazo and G. Fermo. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 43(3): 360-385 (2002) (Paper identified as one of the three of the most influential articles of the year at the 2002 World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economics by Ian Bateman, Editor of Environmental and Resource Economics.)

32. “The Effect of Supply and Demand Shocks on the Non-market Valuation of Public Goods.” J.R. DeShazo.  Journal of Environment and Development Economics. 4: 471-492 (1999)

33. “Demand for Solid Waste Management: A Case Study of Gujranwala, Pakistan.” A. Altaf and J.R. DeShazo. World Development. 24(5): 857-868 (1996)

Unpublished Articles

34. “Two Types of Age Effects in the Demand for Reductions in Mortality Risks with Differing Latencies.” J.R. DeShazo and T.A. Cameron.

35. “The Effect of Health Status on Willingness to Pay for Morbidity and Mortality Risk Reductions.” J.R. DeShazo and T.A. Cameron.

Non-peered Reviewed Articles and Book Chapters 

36. “Pricing Plug-in Electric Vehicle Recharging in Multi-Unit Dwellings: Financial Viability and Fueling Costs,” B. Williams and J.R. DeShazo. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report. (2013)

37. “Profile of Clean Energy Investment Potential – Los Angeles County.” J.R. DeShazo, C. Callahan and N, Wong. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report for the Environmental Defense Fund. (2013)

38. “South Bay Cities Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan.” J.R. DeShazo, A. Ben-Yehuda, N. Wong and A. Turek. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report for Southern California Association of Governments. (2013)

39. “Western Riverside Plug-in Electric Vehicle Deployment Plan.” J.R. DeShazo, A. Ben-Yehuda, N. Wong and V. Hsu. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report for Southern California Association of Governments. (2013)

40. “Moving Towards Resiliency: An Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Energy Investments for the San Pedro Bay Ports.” R. Matulka, J.R. DeShazo and C. Callahan. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report. (2013)

41. “Achieving Proposition 39’s Clean Energy Promise: Investing in Jobs, Energy Efficiency and Renewal Resources.” J.R. DeShazo, C. Callahan, and E. Beryt. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report for the Los Angeles Business Council. (2013)

42. “Southern California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan.” J.R. DeShazo and A. Ben-Yehuda. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report for Southern California Association of Governments. (2012)

43. “Southern California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Atlas.” J.R. DeShazo and A. Ben-Yehuda. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report for Southern California Association of Governments. (2012)

44. “Climate Action Planning in Southern California: Progress Report.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Matute. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report.(2012)

45. “Empowering LA’s Solar Workforce: New Policies that Deliver Investments and Jobs.” J.R DeShazo, M. Pastor, and M. Auer. Produced by the LABC Institute, City of Los Angeles, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Global Green USA, UCLA Luskin Center, and USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity. (2011)

46. “Towards Measuring Green House Gases from Local Jurisdictions.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Matute. Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning. (In press, Oxford University Press)

47. “Making a Market: Multifamily Rooftop Solar and Social Equity in Los Angeles.” J.R. DeShazo, M. Pastor, M. Auer, V. Carter, and N. Vartanian. “ UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report.” (April 2011)

48. “Los Angeles Solar Atlas.”  J.R. DeShazo, R. Matulka, and N. Wong. Produced by the UCLA Luskin  Center for Innovation with financial and data support from Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Business Council, and the UCLA Lewis Center. (2011)

49. “Best Practices for Implementing a Feed-in Tariff Program.” J.R. DeShazo and R. Matulka, “UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report.” (2010)

50. “Bringing Solar Energy to Los Angeles: An Assessment of the Feasibility and Impacts of an In-basin Solar Feed-in Tariff Program.” J.R. DeShazo and R. Matulka, “UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report.” (2010)

51. “Designing an Effective Feed-in Tariff for Greater Los Angeles.” J.R. DeShazo and R. Matulka. “UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report.” (2010)

52. “Early Steps toward Climate Action Planning in Southern California.” J. Matute and J.R. DeShazo. “UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Report.” (2010)

53. “Economic Analysis of California’s Green Chemistry Regulations for Safer Consumer Products.” M. Kahn and J.R. DeShazo. UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability Report. (2010)

54.  “Persistent Market Failures in the Chemical Sector: Consequences for Health and Product Innovation.”  J.R. DeShazo and M. Cohen. Report prepared for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2007)

55. “Congressional Oversight of the Endangered Species Act: How Politics Influences Policy.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Freeman. In 30 Years After the Endangered Species Act. (2005)

56. “Hazardous Waste.” Southern California Environmental Report Card. W.B. Cutter and J.R. DeShazo.  UCLA Institute of the Environment. (2005)

57. “REACHING THE TIPPING POINT IN LOS ANGELES: An Evaluation of the Safer Cities Initiative in MacArthur Park.” J.R. DeShazo and M. Klieman.  Report prepared for Hanover Associates on behalf of the Los Angeles Police Department.  (2004)

58. “The Congressional Competition to Control Delegated Power.” J.R. DeShazo and J. Freeman. Land Use and Environmental Law Review 35. (2004)

59. “Linking Growth in Tourism with the Conservation of Protected Areas: Toward a National Paradigm in Central America.” J.R. DeShazo. In T. Panayotou, ed. Environment for Growth: Environmental Management for Sustainability and Competitiveness in Central America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (2001)

60. “Travel Patterns of Domestic and International Tourists in Central America.” J.R. DeShazo. In T. Panayotou, ed. Environment for Growth: Environmental Management for Sustainability and Competitiveness in Central America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (2001)

61. “The Demand for Types of Recreational Sites in Central America: Comparison of Guatemala and Costa Rica.” J.R. DeShazo. In T. Panayotou, ed. Environment for Growth: Environmental Management for Sustainability and Competitiveness in Central America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (2001)

62. “An Economic Model of Smallholder Deforestation: A Consideration of the Shadow Value of Land on the Frontier.” R. DeShazo and J.R. DeShazo. In International Symposium on Tropical Forest Management in Asia Proceedings, Oslo, Norway. (1994)

Luskin Center Director Briefs State Senators on Benefits of California’s Climate Policy Portfolio Faculty member J.R. DeShazo speaks at Democratic Senate policy retreat

California State Senators and Governor Jerry Brown gathered in Sacramento this week for the annual Democratic Senate policy retreat to discuss issues of statewide and national importance. J.R. DeShazo, director of the Luskin Center, briefed them on the economic benefits of California’s climate portfolio. The focus of his talk was the tremendous opportunity to build prosperous, healthy and livable communities through the State’s new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). The GGRF will soon have billions of dollars to support transit, clean vehicles, sustainable communities, energy efficiency, renewable energy, urban greening and more.

Senate President pro tempore Kevin de León invited Professor DeShazo to be part of a three-person panel moderated by Senator Fran Pavley. Pavley authored AB 32, the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that propelled California as a global climate policy leader. Now the nation and world are watching as California implements an important element of AB 32, the cap-and-trade program, which places the world’s first economy wide cap on carbon pollution and establishes market mechanisms to price carbon credits. These auction proceeds go into the GGRF. Senate Bill 535 (de León) requires that at least 25 percent of the investments benefit disadvantaged communities. DeShazo shared stories about how programs funded by the GGRF have already provided real benefits to low-income communities and households across California, including through job creation, houshold energy cost savings, and clean air health benefits.

Luskin Center research and event organizing is helping to advance the strategic and equitable implementation of climate investments to maximize local benefits to disadvantaged communities. For more information, see our SB 535 research report and this overview presentation.

 

New York & California Incent Climate Change Innovation Differently DeShazo mediates discussion on climate change incentives in California and New York.

On October 6, Richard Kauffman, Chairman of Energy and Finance at the New York State Office of the Governor, and Mary Nichols, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board, spoke with Dr. J.R. DeShazo of UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and Luskin Center for Innovation at the GloSho 2014 opening plenary titled, “Fireside Chat: Two Clean Economy Titans.” MIR presents edited excerpts from the conversation, focused on the public sector’s catalyzing role for innovation in both the California and New York clean-technology private sector. Reprinted from The Planning Report. 

J.R. DeShazo: What are the policy rollouts that are most important for private sector participation, in order to achieve climate change policy goals?

Mary Nichols: If there is one criticism I would make about our metrics in California, which I usually brag about, it is that we’re doing too much—not that we’re doing too little.

It’s hard for people to understand which proceedings they should participate in, where to go, and which agency to talk to. They’re all doing interesting and important things in many different sectors. We’re trying to address that issue in this administration through the work of the four energy agencies. It is amazing that, thanks to AB 32, the Air Resources Board is now considered an energy agency—even though for years we were doing work that had an impact on energy but were not ever considered to be leading in that space.

I think those working in California for a long time have just gotten used to the fact that we’ve got the PUC, the Energy Commission, the Air Resources Board, and the ISO all involved, spending money, passing regulations, and coming out with policies. Every one of these agencies and all of the programs that we have, going back to the Pavley Standards and the first carbon registry in California, are now clearly coming together under the umbrella of climate change. We obviously want to—and must—keep the lights on. Of course, it needs to be affordable. Everyone is in agreement that by 2050, around 80 percent of all carbon and GHG emissions have got to be out of our economy. That is going to take a very big effort. Starting now, we have to find ways to get ourselves there.

Richard Kauffman: I’ve been in the private sector and I know quite a bit about markets. I’ve been a clean-tech investor, so I know that the issues are less about technology, although we certainly need more innovation in technology. But there are plenty of good technology solutions.

The real problem is that there are tons of market constraints and market failures that prevent solutions from coming to life.
Generally, the energy sector is the most mature sector in the economy. It enjoys tremendous scale advantages. The utility industry is regulated, and in many cases, some fundamental regulations have not changed since the time of Edison. Understandably, there is a degree of conservatism about energy and electricity. We want lights to keep going and we want it to be safe. There are lots of issues that are appropriately conservative, but we have to get close and careful to see where the market barriers are.

We also have to do the same thing with government policy. Sometimes when we give grants, the grants don’t lead to new markets or businesses. The government becomes the market.

In New York, we’re trying to have a heavily market-led approach. In terms of our utility sector, we want to change the utility incentives so they are focused on having higher capacity utilization. Right now, the utility sector has 55 percent capacity utilization. How many industries that are capital intensive have 55 percent capacity utilization? None.

There has been a revolution in the last 20-30 years about different business models, adaption technology, and changes in financial incentives, but they have not yet come to the electric utilities sector. That’s because the regulatory incentives haven’t changed. We pay utilities, and the way they get their profits is through getting a regulated return on capital. We can’t be surprised that we have low capacity utilization. We should think about the utilities as getting paid for efficiency, and we stimulate third party app providers to create competitive markets around customers.

You need to draw in innovation to the end market and build the system from the customers-out as opposed to being a push model. With respect to government policy, I’ll give you one example: our residential energy-efficiency program. 70 percent of the houses in New York State are more than 70 years old, so there is a lot of opportunity to get energy efficiency from houses. We have a grant for somebody to do a residential audit, so residents don’t pay for that—ratepayers do. You can get a grant for up to 20 percent of the cost for the retrofit depending on your income. At the current rate of penetration of those programs, it will take 1,000 years.

We’ve got to change government policy and programs so they can stimulate the market. The way to do that is to think about community aggregation. We want to focus the grants on the reduction of soft costs, and customer acquisition and financing costs rather than being the only source of their financing and support.

Audience Question: As Chairman Kauffman mentioned, New York’s new energy vision has utilities rewarded more based on performance. Do you see California taking a similar approach?

Mary Nichols: That’s been the philosophy for quite a long time. Our overall policy has been to separate the ability of utilities to make money from the fact that they need to provide energy-efficiency services.

California has been the first state—now fortunately joined by many others—to separate the ability of utilities to get real return from the amount of sales of their product and pay them for energy-efficiency programs. That’s been probably the most fundamental change that we’ve made from early on.

The directive is to the utilities, but also there is a financial incentive built into it. We are leading in terms of work that we get in our economy and our homes out of kilowatt hours of electricity. We are extremely energy efficient. But there is still a long way to go. There is no question that we need to develop some new and more effective ways of delivering retrofits of existing buildings and such, as Chairman Kauffman was talking about.

The key thing here is that the electric utilities themselves are not the only providers of these services. The market must make it possible for others to function effectively in that space—especially when some utilities are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission and others are regulated by their local governing boards. The legislature has been struggling with this for a while, in terms of how they can set the right kinds of standards that will get the market to work better and get regulations to not be an impediment, but a better inducement.

We’ve gotten a lot better in the transportation sector. The larger share of energy that we use in California goes to moving ourselves and stuff around our state, and the biggest sector of our economy is moving goods around.

We need to think more broadly about the relationship between electricity and natural gas as providers of electricity and providers of transportation. That’s where a lot of the new thinking is going on right now—how to make that crossover work.

J.R. DeShazo: For those unfamiliar, the chairwoman was referring to a decoupling policy adopted in the early ’80s by the CPUC.

Richard Kauffman: I am immensely respectful of all the things that the chairwoman has said. The great thing about states, as Brandeis said, is that they are laboratories of democracy. It’s fantastic that states have been experimenting with things. California has been a leader.

We have decoupling in New York, and what we’re talking about is going beyond California. The issue with decoupling is that it makes utilities indifferent as to the quantity of electricity their customers consume. It doesn’t create a proactive incentive for system efficiency or for things that relate, as Chairwoman Nichols said, to what is going on around customers.

New technology is providing opportunities to think about what it means to be a utility in terms of monopoly. The whole concept of a monopoly depends on the collective being cheaper than the individual. But if the technology changes so that the individual becomes cheaper than the collective, the logic begins to break down.

In Brooklyn, which is growing very rapidly, ConEd the utility would have spent $1 billion for a new substation—which would add about 55-57 percent capacity utilization, built for the hottest few hours or days of the year. That’s a lot of money paid for by all ratepayers, in terms of rates and power costs, which are very high in New York State in the summer and, increasingly, in the winter.

The alternative, which is now going to happen, is that instead of that $1 billion investment, they will be providing power through distributed generation using natural gas, solar, and demand-response energy-efficiency measures. That will cost ratepayers less and will result in a cleaner, cheaper system.

The way it’s being implemented is interesting: Utilities released enough data so that they’re getting all kinds of innovation from the market about how to solve this problem. We’re going to create competitive markets around customers. We’re going to free up data and let a whole variety of service providers come in with a whole variety of solutions that are going to help the utility become more efficient, but also help provide more choices and variety to customers.

Audience Question: What is the onramp for entrepreneurial technology companies that wish to deal with utilities in California?

Mary Nichols: To pick up on what Richard was saying, it’s not going to come from the utilities themselves, clearly. Government policy does play a critical role here in enabling the implementation of new technologies.

I think the source of innovation about financing and providing energy services is coming through the ISO. It is creating new markets for services other than plugging new plants into the system and getting power purchase agreements through the utilities. They are partnering with the Public Utilities Commission and the Energy Commission, in terms of allowing for other ways of services provision and other ways of demonstrating that the lights will stay on.

I completely agree that the solution for the longer term is not just about building more plants. We’re actually dealing now with the issue of what to do when there is an oversupply of electricity at certain times of the day and the year. That’s a small issue now but is going to be a much bigger one in the years to come, as we bring online more solar, wind, geothermal, and other facilities.

Instead of being worried about whether there will be enough to serve the demand at peak times, we are now worried about shedding load, which is a waste and a bad thing to do from an economic perspective. We’re thinking about how to make sure those electrons are being stored and used appropriately.

From the state’s perspective, we’re trying to responsibly look at the whole system and allow it to balance itself in the most efficient possible way.

J.R. DeShazo: I would add—because it’s sort of taken for granted in Chairwoman Nichols’s remarks—that if you’re a utility today in California, you have a set of push and pull factors. The push factors are the RPS and other state legislative requirements. The pull factor is the cap-and-trade program, which is changing the price of your kilowatt-hours as a function of the carbon content. Those incentives are acting actively now in California.

Richard Kauffman: I would add that when we’re thinking about clean-tech, we have to allow for the possibility that not everybody is motivated by saving the planet or saving money on electricity. When Edison helped set up the electricity system, he thought it was only going to be about lighting. Even in his own lifetime, he saw it become much more than just lighting.

I think the technology you guys are all developing provides a lot more value potentially for the electricity system than we have today. Nobody gets up and says, “I want to make more electricity.” It’s what the electricity system provides in terms of value.

I talk to healthcare companies that say, “We want to improve the quality of home health care and reduce costs by at-home health care monitoring. That’s going to require a home automation system.” Apple wants to provide more entertainment through a home automating system. The drivers for a new electricity system could be convenience, comfort, and health. That has potential for a much more energy-efficient system, but the driver may be other things than just saving money.  That’s why it’s so important to get innovation in the market.

Audience Question: Chairman Kauffman, I want to thank you and NYSERDA for funding a grant that my company seeded in early 2000 to study a hybrid biogas wind program for Wyoming County. Now, we’re faced with those issues in the Central Valley—yet, we have not seen the whole commercialization of biogas to reduce methane, to reduce NOx precursors, and the associated water issues. What are your agencies doing to promote those solutions?

Richard Kauffman: I think you have identified a classic problem of how we need to evolve our government policy. These projects would be supported by a grant here or there. It’s not really creating a market. I’m not saying that grants or incentives may not be necessary, but is that the only mechanism that we’re going to use?

We’re working in this area to make sure that the projects are really local. Is the cost for the developer and the customer acquisition cost really high? If you lower the developer cost, you’re going to get more projects done.

How do you lower the development cost? One way is to identify if projects are located next to something else—and whether the gas or electricity could be useful to the rest of the system. Let’s develop projects where it’s going to be better for the system.

How can we get local communities or governments involved in this, where there are opportunities for them to save money? Right now, each local government has to figure it out on its own. Is there a way to create a mechanism where there are off-the-shelf solutions that local governments can use? Government can do things like convening, which doesn’t cost a lot of money.

Another example is financing. Project financing is difficult for small projects. This isn’t about subsidized financing. We have a green bank that can do things like provide an aggregation facility for financing. These projects are just a few millions dollars—and it’s very hard to get a bank interested in that kind of money. But if the green bank can provide an aggregation facility, then you can actually provide the financing market for the private sector.

Mary Nichols: This is not in any way to dismiss the abstract of what you’re saying. But I want to focus on the practical problem of methane and dairies as a practical example of the range of issues involved and how the right mix of policies, regulations, and standards are necessary elements of the overall solution that will also drive investment.

We have dairies in the Central Valley of California that are located near each other. We’ve actually had dairy owners willing to volunteer to try to host digesters on their land.

We have a problem with nitrate in the water, and we have a problem of needing renewable natural gas. We have a problem of wanting to get methane out of the air. So we have all these reasons why we would like to make this system work.

We can set pipeline standards to get this stuff into the pipeline. We can promote the best technology that is now in the early stages.

We can’t make it economical for the dairy owner to truck the waste from the cows to a central location. The cows in the dairies are not located in a place where it’s convenient to put in some megafacility all in one place. We actually need to create, or have someone create, a company that would go out there and work to finance these things—aggregating a lot of these projects together. That would be the sensible market solution.

But until there is a sense that there is a long-term commitment to this—that there’s money out there to help finance it, there are regulatory tools in place, and targets that they’re going to meet (probably in terms of the nitrate standard for the underground water supply)—it’s not going to come together. Not to say that this isn’t the way it should go— just to say it’s going to take, still, a lot of work on the part of a lot of people to implement a solution that we all know is the right thing to do.

For more information see: http://glosho.la

 

UCLA Luskin Center Study Informs LA Energy Efficiency Commitment Announced by Mayor Garcetti Today

Mayor 3

November 10th — Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti announced today a new, industry-leading energy efficiency commitment for the city’s utility, with the goal informed by a new UCLA study addressing the economic and employment benefits of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP’s) energy efficiency programs. Speaking at the press conference with the Mayor, UCLA Luskin Center Director J.R. DeShazo drew attention to the study, which finds that LADWP’s diverse portfolio of energy efficiency programs already creates 16 job-years per million dollars invested, and that a full implementation of these programs into 2020 could result in nearly 17,000 job-years in Los Angeles County.

The release of the UCLA Luskin Center study today came after LADWP commissioners recently approved a commitment to a 15% reduction in electricity consumption in Los Angeles through energy efficiency measures. David Jacot, Director of Energy Efficiency at DWP, recommended this goal using the jobs study as proof of the positive economic and employment benefits of energy efficiency programs.

“Just as water conservation is how we will get through our drought and control our water costs, energy conservation is how we will address climate change and keep our power bills low,” Mayor Garcetti said. “Investing in efficiency is three to four times cheaper than building new power plants and it takes pollution out of our air. The cheapest and cleanest way to ensure we have enough electricity to keep the lights on and power our economy is through energy efficiency.”

 

Efficiently Energizing Job Creation in Los Angeles highlights the importance of energy efficiency efforts. Obvious benefits include reduced air pollution and decreased burden on the electric grid, while the study specifically quantifies the numbers and types of jobs created by LADWP’s existing energy efficiency programs.

After analyzing LADWP’s diverse portfolio of 18 energy efficiency programs, UCLA researchers found that those programs create an average of 16 job-years per million dollars invested in Los Angeles County. The 18 programs researched in the UCLA study generally come in two varieties—direct install or incentive/rebate based–and deal with new construction as well as retrofits of existing building stock. Examples of these two types of offerings include programs such as the Small Business Direct Install, which provides small business customers actual energy and water-saving installations at no charge, while others such as the Customer Performance Program offer customers an array of rebates and incentives to encourage retrofits in lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, and more.

The study found that the programs benefit all types of LADWP customers—industrial, commercial and residential, including low-income and senior citizen life line customer.  These programs also have the added benefit of stimulating growth among a wide set of skills and trades, from electrical, plumbing and construction to engineering and design, and the investment in these programs were found to have significant ripple effects in the local economy.

The authors of the study note that 16 job-years per million dollars invested is significantly higher than legacy energy production methods like coal and natural gas, as well as “typical” job-creators like construction, which create 6.9, 5.2 and 10.7 jobs respectively. It is even higher than other green industries like solar and smart grid, which create 13.7 and 12.5 jobs respectively. This research fills a big gap in accurate job creation numbers associated with specific types of energy efficiency programs, and will hopefully serve as a model that other utilities around the country can use.

Industry Job Years / Million $ Invested
Energy Efficiency 16.0
Solar 13.7
Smart Grid 12.5
Construction 10.7
Coal 6.9
Natural Gas 5.2

Moving forward, the programs could create over a quarter billion dollars annually in economic output. Forecasting through 2020, the Luskin Center study finds that LADWP energy efficiency programs would create nearly 17,000 job-years in Los Angeles County as the programs are currently designed.

Luskin Center sets out to make L.A. a greener place to live, work The Luskin Center for Innovation has set a goal to produce research that will help Los Angeles become more environmentally sustainable

By Cynthia Lee

Green power. Solar energy incentives. Renewable energy. Smart water systems. Planning for climate change. Clean tech in L.A. For the next three years, the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation has set an ambitious goal to produce research that will help Los Angeles and state and federal agencies reach the Holy Grail of environmental sustainability.

Five Luskin scholars are working on initiatives that could change how residents, businesses, industries and government meet the challenge of living more sustainably. The Luskin center is carrying out a mission that was broadly outlined by Chancellor Gene Block in his inaugural address on May 13, 2008: to marshal the university’s intellectual resources campuswide and work toward intense civic engagement to solve vexing local and regional problems. “I believe that UCLA can have its greatest impact by focusing its expertise from across the campus to comprehensively address problems that plague Los Angeles,” the chancellor told an audience in Royce Hall.

With an agenda packed with six hefty research initiatives, the center is diving into that task under the leadership of its new director, J.R. DeShazo, an environmental economist and associate professor of public policy who also heads the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. DeShazo took the reins in October when the center moved from the Chancellor’s Office to the School of Public Affairs, a move that took advantage of the school’s outward orientation. “It’s focused on policy solutions, so this is a natural place for us to grow,” DeShazo said. “But even though the center is located here, we’re very cross-disciplinary. We have researchers from chemistry, public health, engineering, the Anderson management school, the Institute of the Environment (IoE) and public policy.”

The five scholars working on the six initiatives are DeShazo; Yoram Cohen, an engineering professor and director of the Water Technology Research Center; Magali Delmas, professor of management and the IoE; Hilary Godwin, professor of environmental health sciences; and Matt Kahn, professor of economics in the departments of Economics and Public Policy and IoE. “We started off by identifying problems that our community is facing and that it can’t solve,” DeShazo said. Then, they asked two questions: “Does UCLA have the research capacity to address this deficit? And can we find a civic partner who can make use of this new knowledge?” Proposals were prioritized by a 16-member advisory board with a broad representation of business and nonprofit executives, elected officials and a media expert. Among the high-profile board members are State Senators Carol Liu and Fran Pavley; Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board; Los Angeles Council President Eric Garcetti and Controller Wendy Greuel; Assemblymember Mike Feuer; John Mack, chairman of the Police Commission; and William Ouchi, professor of the Anderson School and chairman of the Riordan Programs.

“We take our research ideas and develop real-world solutions that can be passed on to a civic partner with whom we can engage and support,” DeShazo said. “We let them carry through with the politics of policy reform as well as the implementation. We don’t get involved in advocacy.” An array of local green research DeShazo recently completed Luskin’s first initiative with his research on designing a solar energy program for L.A. that would minimize costs to ratepayers. His research – the basis of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s new energy policy – proposes a solar feed-in tariff that would help everyone from homeowners and nonprofits to commercial property owners buy solar panels and be able to sell their solar energy to utility companies for a small profit.

Other Luskin research initiatives involve creating smart water systems for Southern California with water reclamation, treatment and reuse (UCLA researcher Cohen will work in partnership with the Metropolitan Water District); helping local governments plan for climate change (DeShazo with the California Air Resources Board and the Southern California Association of Governments); and reducing toxic exposures to nanomaterials in California (Godwin with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.) In another initiative in partnership with the Mayor’s Office and the California Air Resources Board, researchers are compiling a database of jobs created by clean tech activities in L.A. County and will document best practices that other cities have used to attract and support clean tech development. Luskin’s Kahn is working with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District to pinpoint what determines how much electricity is used by residential and commercial consumers and how the district can market its major green energy programs to increase participation.

Finally, Delmas is looking into whether the Green Business Certification Program approved recently by the City Council will reduce the overall carbon footprint of small businesses. The program offers incentives and assistance to small business owners in L.A. to become more efficient and less wasteful in their everyday practices. Those businesses that meet certain “green” criteria will be certified as being environmentally friendly. Her partner in this venture is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Releases Solar Feed-in Tariff Report Informing Renewable Energy Policy in Los Angeles The Luskin Center for Innovation at the UCLA School of Public Affairs unites the intellectual capital of UCLA with the Los Angeles Business Council to publish a report on an effective feed-in tariff system for the greater Los Angeles area

By Minne Ho

The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation and the Los Angeles Business Council has publicly released the report, “Designing an Effective Feed-in Tariff for Greater Los Angeles.” The report was unveiled yesterday at the Los Angeles Business Council’s Sustainability Summit, attended by hundreds of the city’s elected officials and business, nonprofit, and civic leaders.

J.R. DeShazo, the director UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation, has long studied how governments can promote and help implement environmentally friendly energy policies. His recent research on solar energy incentive programs, conducted with Luskin Center research project manager Ryan Matulka and other colleagues at UCLA, has already become the basis for a new energy policy introduced by the city of Los Angeles.

On Monday, March 15, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced an ambitious program to move the city’s energy grid toward renewable energy sources over the next decade. Included in the plan is a provision — based in large part on the Luskin Center research — for a “feed-in tariff,” which would encourage residents to install solar energy systems that are connected to the city’s power grid.

The overall plan would require ratepayers to pay 2.7 cents more per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed, with 0.7 cents of that — a so-called carbon surcharge — going to the city’s Renewable Energy and Efficiency Trust, a lockbox that will specifically fund two types of programs: energy efficiency and the solar power feed-in tariff.

Under the feed-in tariff system, homeowners, farmers, cooperatives and businesses in Los Angeles that install solar panels on homes or other properties could sell solar energy to public utility suppliers. The price paid for this renewable energy would be set at an above-market level that covers the cost of the electricity produced, plus a reasonable profit. “A feed-in tariff initiated in this city has the potential to change the landscape of Los Angeles,” said DeShazo, who is also an associate professor of public policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. “If incentivized appropriately, the program could prompt individual property owners and businesses to install solar panels on unused spaces including commercial and industrial rooftops, parking lots, and residential buildings. Our projections show that the end result would be more jobs and a significant move to renewable energy with no net cost burden to the city.”

Feed-in tariffs for solar energy have been implemented in Germany and several other European countries, as well as domestically in cities in Florida and Vermont. The programs have moved these regions to the forefront of clean energy. And while these programs have necessitated slight increases in ratepayers’ monthly electricity bills, they have also generated thousands of new jobs. The mayor estimated that under the program announced Monday, 18,000 new jobs would be generated over the next 10 years. “For Los Angeles to be the cleanest, greenest city, we need participation from every Angeleno,” Villaraigosa said. “We know that dirty fossil fuels will only become more scarce and more expensive in the years to come. This helps move us toward renewable energy while at the same time creating new jobs.”

The new program had its genesis last year, when Villaraigosa announced a long-term, comprehensive solar plan intended to help meet the city’s future clean energy needs. The plan included a proposal for a solar feed-in tariff program administered by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. In September 2009, the Los Angeles Business Council created a Solar Working Group consisting of leaders in the private, environmental and educational sectors in Los Angeles County to investigate the promise of the feed-in tariff for Los Angeles and commissioned the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation to lead the investigation. In addition to DeShazo and Matulka, the working group also included Sean Hecht and Cara Horowitz from the UCLA School of Law’s Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment. The first phase of their research examined current models operating in Germany, Spain, Canada, Vermont and Florida to propose guidelines for a feed-in tariff design. The second phase looks at the potential participation rates in a large-scale solar feed-in tariff program in Los Angeles and its impact on clean energy in the Los Angeles basin.

The Luskin Center for Innovation at the UCLA School of Public Affairs unites the intellectual capital of UCLA with forward-looking civic leaders in Los Angeles to address urgent public issues and actively work toward solutions. The center’s current focus in on issues of environmental sustainability.

Mayor Villaraigosa Announces L.A. Solar Energy Incentive Plan Based on UCLA Luskin Research

J.R. DeShazo, the director UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation, has long studied how governments can promote and help implement environmentally friendly energy policies. Now, his recent research on solar energy incentive programs, conducted with Luskin Center research project manager Ryan Matulka and other colleagues at UCLA, has become the basis for a new energy policy introduced by the city of Los Angeles.

On Monday, March 15, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced an ambitious program to move the city’s energy grid toward renewable energy sources over the next decade. Included in the plan is a provision — based in large part on the Luskin Center research — for a “feed-in tariff,” which would encourage residents to install solar energy systems that are connected to the city’s power grid. The overall plan would require ratepayers to pay 2.7 cents more per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed, with 0.7 cents of that — a so-called carbon surcharge — going to the city’s Renewable Energy and Efficiency Trust, a lockbox that will specifically fund two types of programs: energy efficiency and the solar power feed-in tariff. Under the feed-in tariff system, homeowners, farmers, cooperatives and businesses in Los Angeles that install solar panels on homes or other properties could sell solar energy to public utility suppliers.

The price paid for this renewable energy would be set at an above-market level that covers the cost of the electricity produced, plus a reasonable profit. “A feed-in tariff initiated in this city has the potential to change the landscape of Los Angeles,” said DeShazo, who is also an associate professor of public policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. “If incentivized appropriately, the program could prompt individual property owners and businesses to install solar panels on unused spaces including commercial and industrial rooftops, parking lots, and residential buildings. Our projections show that the end result would be more jobs and a significant move to renewable energy with no net cost burden to the city.”

Feed-in tariffs for solar energy have been implemented in Germany and several other European countries, as well as domestically in cities in Florida and Vermont. The programs have moved these regions to the forefront of clean energy. And while these programs have necessitated slight increases in ratepayers’ monthly electricity bills, they have also generated thousands of new jobs.

The mayor estimated that under the program announced Monday, 18,000 new jobs would be generated over the next 10 years. “For Los Angeles to be the cleanest, greenest city, we need participation from every Angeleno,” Villaraigosa said. “We know that dirty fossil fuels will only become more scarce and more expensive in the years to come. This helps move us toward renewable energy while at the same time creating new jobs.”

The new program had its genesis last year, when Villaraigosa announced a long-term, comprehensive solar plan intended to help meet the city’s future clean energy needs. The plan included a proposal for a solar feed-in tariff program administered by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. In September 2009, the Los Angeles Business Council created a Solar Working Group consisting of leaders in the private, environmental and educational sectors in Los Angeles County to investigate the promise of the feed-in tariff for Los Angeles and commissioned the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation to lead the investigation.

In addition to DeShazo and Matulka, the working group also included Sean Hecht and Cara Horowitz from the UCLA School of Law’s Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment. The first phase of their research examined current models operating in Germany, Spain, Canada, Vermont and Florida to propose guidelines for a feed-in tariff design. The second phase looks at the potential participation rates in a large-scale solar feed-in tariff program in Los Angeles and its impact on clean energy in the Los Angeles basin. The Los Angeles Business Council is expected to release the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation’s complete report on solar energy feed-in tariffs next month. The Luskin Center for Innovation at the UCLA School of Public Affairs unites the intellectual capital of UCLA with forward-looking civic leaders in Los Angeles to address urgent public issues and actively work toward solutions. The center’s current focus in on issues of environmental sustainability.