One major example is that every state makes it a felony for a non-utility to run a private electric wire across a public street. Private phone companies have done this for decades, but not independent power producers. That means companies that use RED can’t sell any excess power and heat to neighboring buildings, thereby suppressing demand for recycled energy.

Another example of a regulation that inhibits efficiency is actually the Clean Air Act, which includes a grandfather clause that allows old, dirty power plants to stay in business forever. If these plants make any investment at all in efficiency, they are legally obligated to go all the way and use the top-of-the-line technology throughout the plant; otherwise, their operating permits will be voided. The result is that these plants simply make no efficiency improvements at all, and haven’t since the Clean Air Act passed.

Indeed. Recycled Energy Development appears to be finding fast-payback waste opportunities that work in the context of 2006 oil prices, i.e., no add-on carbon price signal. Very definitely no-regrets, and shareholders should be happy even if we are back to $50/bbl oil in the next decade.

Roger Pielke is pessimistic about passing any useful carbon price signal. I wrote him a note a few days ago encouraging him to look at the Nordhaus 2007 study “The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy” [PDF]. This is the most complete, up-to-date examination (I know of) of the relationship between estimated consequences and carbon pricing policy options. The political process may take no notice, but I find it very encouraging as to the possibility of impacting GHG concentrations without significantly reducing the wealth of the future generations. Nordhaus’s team finds the optimum carbon price policy starts quite low, progressing at a 2 to 3% compounded real rate of increase. I’m guessing e.g. 2x more wealth/capita in 2100 Bangladesh is one of the most important assets for effective management of impacts.

I thought Pielke’s post it was really excellent. What did you think? I’ve not written anything on it yet, still thinking about it.

This is one of the “no-regrets” steps in addressing the global-warming risk. Things that it will have made sense to do even if global warming turns out not as great as risk as it appears to be now.

I would appreciate any references you can offer on the regulations that are impeding the efforts of Recycled Energy Development.