Environmental Valuation & Cost-Benefit News

Executive Summary

Maryland faces daunting challenges for its energy future. The growing demand for electricity and the stall in power system capacity calls into question our ability to keep the lights on past 2011–2012. Consumers are reeling from the recent surge in electricity prices that strain household budgets, imperil jobs, and create uncertainty for the state’s economy. Building new generation or transmission resources cannot meet these challenges in the near term—they cannot be brought online in time to forestall blackouts, and they will further increase electricity prices. Energy efficiency and demand response are the only resources that can be mobilized now to stave off the prospect of power curtailments in the next few years. Because they cost less than conventional power plants, these demand-side resources are also the best way to help customers reduce their electricity bills.

Energy efficiency and demand response are not only the least-cost resources for meeting Maryland’s future electricity needs: they also help the economy by creating new “green collar” jobs. Maryland has begun to lay the groundwork for a clean energy future with the recent enactment of a renewable electricity standard, appliance efficiency standards, and its participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Despite these important steps, much more is needed. In 2007, Governor O’Malley set a goal to reduce per-capita electricity usage 15% by 2015. The Maryland General Assembly is now considering the Governor’s request to write this target into law. Because the energy policy choices the legislature makes today will define Maryland’s energy future for years to come, this report provides a detailed assessment of energy-saving options to help policy-makers reach informed decisions.

The energy efficiency policies assessed in this report hold the potential to meet 15% of forecasted electricity consumption by 2015, enough to meet Governor O’Malley’s goal, and 29% by 2025. This resource assessment identifies over 22,000 GWh of cost-effective electricity efficiency, more than sufficient to meet the projected 2015 policy suite savings of 10,500 GWh. Reducing summer peak demand, those times when utilities face the greatest strain on their electricity systems, is as important as reducing overall electricity consumption. These energy efficiency initiatives, along with expanded demand response programs, have the potential to reduce summer peak demand by 32% in 2015 and 47% in 2025.

These energy savings and demand reductions will reduce customer electricity bills, help stave off possible power blackouts, and give Maryland a head start on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, all while boosting the economy. Few policies offer this four-way payoff of lower consumer bills, increased energy security, a cleaner environment, and a stronger economy.

ACEEE recommends, and has assessed in this report, the following policies:
* An Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) requiring 15% electricity savings per capita by 2015, relative to 2007 per capita consumption
* Extend the electricity savings target by 1.5% of total sales per year from 2016–2025, ultimately reaching savings equal to 29% of the state’s forecasted sales in 2025
* Implementation of existing federal and state appliance standards, supplemented by a suite of new state standards
* More stringent residential and commercial building energy codes
* A clean energy research, development, and deployment (RD&D) initiative funded by the state to meet the state’s unique needs while helping to build a “green collar” energy industry in the state
* Policies to encourage new combined heat and power (CHP) systems in the industrial, institutional, and commercial sectors
* Expanded utility demand response programs to reduce peak demand for electricity

The EERS represents the core of these policies, providing a foundation upon which the appliance standards, building codes, and RD&D can be layered to fully achieve the goals.

The energy savings from these efficiency policies can cut the electricity bills of participating customers by a net $860 million in 2015 and $2.6 billion in 2025. While these savings will require some public and customer investment, they yield for every dollar invested. By 2015, an average household will save a net $8 on their monthly electricity bill from residential efficiency programs. In addition, because of the current volatility in energy prices, efficiency strategies have the added benefit of improving the balance of demand and supply in energy markets, thereby stabilizing regional electricity prices for the future. These reduced wholesale prices can save a typical household another $2 on monthly electricity bills.

Investments in efficiency have the additional benefit of creating new, high-quality “green-collar” jobs for the state. Our analysis shows that these investments will create more than 12,000 new jobs in the state by 2025 (see Table 2), including well-paying trade and professional jobs needed to design and install energy efficiency measures. These new jobs, including both direct and indirect employment effects, would be the equivalent of some 100 new manufacturing plants relocating to Maryland, but without the public costs for infrastructure or the environmental impacts of new facilities.

Based on the analyses behind this report, the authors are confident that the state can meet Gov. O’Malley’s energy efficiency goals with positive economic and environmental benefits. Energy efficiency policies can more than offset projected load growth in the state over the next 18 years, deferring costly new electric power generation and transmission projects and reducing the risk of blackouts over the next 3–4 years.

All of the choices for the state’s energy future bear costs. The key question for Maryland policy-makers is: which kinds of investments provide the best return for Maryland electricity customers? This analysis shows that demand-side investments are the better choice, and thus should be pursued first. While new supply investments may well be needed, investing on the demand side now is Maryland’s best energy, economic, and environmental strategy.

Reducing demand for electricity with efficiency will also reduce air pollutant emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels at power plants, giving the state a cleaner energy future at an affordable cost. Reduced global warming emissions will also contribute to meeting Maryland’s RGGI commitments, while actually saving consumers money.

Maryland is poised to take the next steps toward its energy future. The current path is not sustainable—it threatens the security of Maryland’s power system, and could raise customer electricity bills still further. A clean energy policy suite, beginning with energy efficiency, can meet the state’s growing needs for electricity, making the power system more reliable while reducing consumer bills and cutting global warming pollution. This clean energy path will also strengthen, not weaken, the state’s economy by stimulating investment and creating good jobs.

by Maggie Eldridge 1, Neal Elliott 1, William Prindle 1, Katie Ackerly 1, John “Skip” Laitner 1, Vanessa McKinney 1, Steve Nadel 1, and Max Neubauer 1, Alison Silverstein, Bruce Hedman, Anne Hampson 2, and Ken Darrow 2
1. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) www.aceee.org
2. EEA Division of ICF Internationa,l
February, 2008

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) www.aceee.org
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e082.htm

Abstract: Many people believe that the problem of climate change would be best handled by an international agreement that includes a system of “cap and trade.” Such a system would impose a global cap on greenhouse gases emissions and allocate tradable emissions permits. This proposal raises a crucial but insufficiently explored question: How should such permits be allocated? It is tempting to suggest that in principle, allocation should be done on a per capita basis, with the idea that each person should begin with the same entitlement, regardless of place of birth. This idea, pressed by many analysts and by the developing world, can be defended on grounds of either welfare or fairness. But on both grounds, per capita allocations run into serious objections. If fairness is understood in terms of equally or proportionally sharing the burdens of a climate treaty, per capita allocations are not fair because they do not take into account all the effects of such a treaty. Any agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will give more benefits to some nations than to others, and will impose more costs on some nations than on others; in these circumstances, per capita emissions rights give the appearance but not the reality of fairness. For those who seek redistribution to those who need help, on grounds of either welfare or fairness, per capita allocations of emissions rights are at best a mixed blessing. Some rich nations are highly populated, and some poor nations have small populations; there is essentially no relationship between size of population and per capita wealth. Per capita allocations would also create serious incentive problems, and they would face decisive objections from the standpoint of feasibility: Per capita rights would transfer hundreds of billions of dollars annually from the United States to China and India, and the United States is most unlikely to sign a treaty with that consequence. Comparisons are drawn between per capita allocations and other approaches, including those based on existing emissions rates and those with self-conscious redistributive aims. A general goal is to balance welfarist and fairness goals with feasibility constraints; per capita allocations do a poor job of achieving that balance, and an insistence on that approach might make the climate change problem intractable. These conclusions have general implications for thinking about normative goals and practical limitations in the context of international law.

by Eric A. Posner and Cass R. Sunstein

AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies www.reg-markets.org
Working Paper 08-08; March 2008.
http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1446
The "Reg-Markets Center", officially the AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies, was founded by Bob Hahn in 2008 as the successor to the AEI-Brookings Joint Center. A primary aim of the Reg-Markets Center is to gain a deeper understanding of how markets, laws and regulation contribute to economic well-being. The Center will be an independent voice in policy debates.

Summary: This paper examines stability of international climate agreements for carbon abatement under an optimal transfer rule and renegotiations. The optimal transfer rule suggested to stabilise international environmental agreements (Weikard 2005, Carraro, Eyckmans and Finus 2006) is no longer optimal when agreements are renegotiated. We determine the conditions for optimal self-enforcing sequences of agreements. If these conditions are met, then transfer payments can be arranged such that no country wants to change its membership status at any stage. In order to demonstrate the applicability of our condition we use the STACO model, a 12-regions global model, to assess the impact of welldesigned transfer rules on the stability of an international climate agreement. Although there are strong free-rider incentives, we find a stable grand coalition in the first commitment period in a game with one round of renegotiations.

Keywords: Stability of Coalitions, International Environmental Agreements, Partition Function Approach, Sharing Rules, Optimal Transfers, Renegotiations

by Hans-Peter Weikard 1 and Rob Dellink
1. Wageningen University; Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands; Tel.: +31317482494, Fax: +31317484933; Hans-Peter.Weikard@wur.nl
2. VU University Amsterdam,

Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) www.FEEM.it
http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/WPapers/WP2008-026.htm?WP_Page=1

A new study by CoStar Group has found that sustainable "green" buildings outperform their non-green peer assets in key areas such as occupancy, sale price and rental rates, sometimes by wide margins.

The results indicate a broader demand by property investors and tenants for buildings that have earned either LEED® certification or the Energy Star® label....

According to the CoStar study, LEED buildings command rent premiums of $11.33 per square foot over their non-LEED peers and register 4.1 percent higher occupancy. Rental rates in Energy Star buildings represent a $2.40 per square foot premium over comparable non-Energy Star buildings and have 3.6 percent higher occupancy.

...Energy Star buildings are selling for an average of $61 per square foot more than their peers, while LEED buildings command a remarkable $171 more per square foot.

Andrew Florance, president and CEO of CoStar, conducted the study with Jay Spivey, CoStar's director of analytics, and Dr. Norm Miller of the Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate at the University of San Diego. They analyzed more than 1,300 LEED and Energy Star buildings representing about 351 million square feet in CoStar’s commercial property database of roughly 44 billion square feet, and assessed those buildings against non-green properties with similar size, location, class, tenancy and year-built characteristics to generate the results.
...
One reason for the "green" premiums would appear to be the constricted supply of green buildings, which account for less than 1 percent of space in CoStar's database.
...
CoStar began tagging green buildings in its database about two years ago with the help of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the nonprofit trade group that created the LEED certification system, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which administers the government-sanctioned Energy Star label.
...
LEED and Energy Star address distinct -- if not related -- goals.
...
EPA's Energy Star program, an energy-benchmarking tool ...largely bypasses the bells and whistles of LEED by targeting simpler and highly cost-effective strategies for improving energy efficiency in buildings, such as installing energy efficient windows, turning off computers at night and adding motion sensors to control lighting. ... Buildings that have earned the Energy Star label use an average of almost 40 percent less energy than average buildings, and emit 35 percent less carbon.

In fact, according to EPA, as many as 500 buildings out of the 4,100 or so total commercial buildings that have earned Energy Star use a full 50 percent less energy than average buildings. And many of those efficiency practices, such as upgrading light bulbs or office equipment, pay for themselves in energy cost savings.
...
Participation in Energy Star increased by more than 175 percent from 2006 to 2007. To date, almost 8 billion square feet of U.S. property has been benchmarked through Energy Star.

FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=D968F1E0DCF73712B03A099E0E99C679&ref=1&src=rss
Costar www.Costar.com
March 28, 2008
U.S. Green Building Council www.usgbc.org Press Release dated April 3, 2008
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/NBI%20and%20CoStar%20Group%20Release%20040108.pdf

A growing body of research on happiness or subjective well-being (SWB) shows, among other things, that people adapt to many injuries more rapidly than is commonly thought, fail to predict the degree of adaptation and hence overestimate the impact of those injuries on their SWB, and, similarly, enjoy small or moderate rather than significant changes in SWB in response to significant changes in income. Some researchers believe that these findings pose a challenge to cost-benefit analysis, and argue that project evaluation decision-procedures based on economic premises should be replaced with procedures that directly maximize subjective well-being. This view turns out to be wrong or, at best, premature. Cost-benefit analysis remains a viable decision-procedure. However, some of the findings in the happiness literature can be used to generate valuations for cost-benefit analysis where current approaches have proven inadequate.

by Matthew D. Adler and Eric A. Posner
AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies www.reg-markets.org
Working Paper 08-10; March, 2008.
The AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies was founded by Bob Hahn in 2008 as the successor to the AEI-Brookings Joint Center. A primary aim of the Reg-Markets Center is to gain a deeper understanding of how markets, laws and regulation contribute to economic well-being. The Center will be an independent voice in policy debates.
http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1448&PHPSESSID=98d2bc04eb28e98a0c32fab0c09ceaa9

Carbon offsets enable individuals and businesses to reduce the CO2 emissions they are responsible for by offsetting, reducing or displacing the CO2 in another place, typically where it is more economical to do so. Carbon offsets typically include renewable energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects. As more and more people are concerned about global warming and seeking to reduce their climate impact, carbon offsets, along with personal carbon reductions, provide an important solution to global warming.

Example: a mid-sized 30 mpg car driving 12,000 miles/year will create about 3.55 tons of CO2/year. Using the carbon calculator of one of the companies which are listed here, we figured this would cost only about $19.50 or $1.63/month to be offset!

According to the survey dated April 5, 2008 AtmosClear Climate Club sells methane offsets for $3.96 - $25.00 and Carbonfund.org sell Renewable, Efficiency and Reforestation offsets for $4.30 - 5.50. The survey lists 17 verified/certified and 4 unverified sources along with their Country, Profit/Non-profit status, Projects Type, Project Choice and Offset Type.

Ecobusinesslinks.com www.ecobusinesslinks.com
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm

Americans are failing to save for retirement, investing their money foolishly, and choosing health insurance plans that poorly meet their needs. Why do so many of us make bad choices on such important issues? Recent scientific research shows that people are susceptible to cognitive biases. Because we are human, we are fallible, and because we are fallible, we can use some help. Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein examine these issues in their new book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008). They argue that nudges can be deployed easily and inexpensively in many contexts, producing concrete benefits for real people.

AGENDA

Friday, April 18th, 2008, 11:45 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI; 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
11:45 A.M. Registration and Lunch
12:15 P.M. Welcome, ROBERT HAHN, Reg-Markets Center
12:30 Presenters: Cass R. Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler both of the University of Chicago
Discussant: Jeffrey R. Kling, Brookings Institution
2:00 Adjournment

Videos of AEI events are often available as webcasts at www.reg-markets.org and on CSPAN at www.CSPAN.org or www.BookTV.or

Biographies:

Robert Hahn is a senior fellow at AEI and founder and executive director of AEI’s Reg-Markets Center, which continues the AEI-Brookings Joint Center’s mission of examining cutting-edge issues in law, economics, regulation, and antitrust. Previously, he worked for the Council of Economic Advisers and served on the faculties of Harvard University and Carnegie Mellon University. He frequently contributes to leading scholarly journals and general-interest periodicals, including the American Economic Review, the Yale Law Journal, Science, and the New York Times. Mr. Hahn is the author of Reviving Regulatory Reform: A Global Perspective (AEI Press, 2000) and several other books. In addition, Mr. Hahn is cofounder of the Community Preparatory School, an inner-city middle school in Providence, R.I., that provides opportunities for disadvantaged youth to achieve their full potential.

Jeffrey R. Kling is the deputy director and a senior fellow in the economic studies program at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Kling is director of the Policy Evaluation Project, which coordinates the selection, design, implementation, and analysis of randomized experiments conducted in partnership with private firms and government agencies that test policy innovations. He has previously served as assistant professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, special assistant to the secretary at the Department of Labor, and assistant to the chief economist at the World Bank. He was awarded a Faculty Early Career Development Award from the National Science Foundation and a Scholar Award from the W. T. Grant Foundation for his work integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods in identifying the causal effects of public policies. The results of this research have been published in leading journals, including the American Economic Review, Econometrica, and the Quarterly Journal of Economics, and have been featured in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Cass R. Sunstein is the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and the department of political science. Mr. Sunstein is a former law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall and was the attorney-advisor in the Department of Justice. He is the author of many books, including After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (Harvard University Press, 1990), Free Markets and Social Justice (Oxford University Press, 1997), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press, 2005), and Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007). His edited books include Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy, with Stephen Breyer, Richard Stewart, and Matthew Spitzer (Aspen Publishers, 1998). He has testified before congressional committees on many topics in regulation and administrative law and has participated in constitution-making and law-reform activities in many nations, including Russia, Ukraine, South Africa, Poland, and China.

Richard H. Thaler is the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics and director of the Center for Decision Research at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business. Previously, he worked as a research economist for the Center of Naval Analyses and as a professor at Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Thaler, with coauthor Shlomo Benartzi of the University of California, Los Angeles, won the 2005 Paul A. Samuelson Award for outstanding scholarly writing on lifelong financial security for “Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Savings,” which was published in the Journal of Political Economy. He has published a number of articles in prominent journals such as the American Economics Review, the Journal of Finance, and the Journal of Political Economy. He is the author of Quasi Rational Economics (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994) and The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life (Princeton University Press, 1994), and he edited Advances in Behavioral Finance (Russell Sage Foundation, 1993).

http://www.reg-markets.org/events/page.php?id=169
AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies www.reg-markets.org
The AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies was founded by Bob Hahn in 2008 as the successor to the AEI-Brookings Joint Center. A primary aim of the Reg-Markets Center is to gain a deeper understanding of how markets, laws and regulation contribute to economic well-being. The Center will be an independent voice in policy debates.

The rate of obesity in the United States has doubled in the last 30 years, and those extra pounds weigh on companies' bottom lines, according to a new report from The Conference Board. Today, 34 percent of American adults fit the definition of "obese." Obese employees cost U.S. private employers an estimated $45 billion annually in medical expenditures and work loss.

In a new report, Weights and Measures: What Employers Should Know about Obesity, The Conference Board examines the financial and ethical questions surrounding whether, and how, U.S. companies should address the obesity epidemic. The report was featured today on Marketplace, public radio's popular business program.

"Employers need to realize that obesity is not solely a health and wellness issue," says Labor Economist Linda Barrington, Research Director of The Conference Board Management Excellence Program and co-author of the report. "Employees' obesity-related health problems in the United States are costing companies billions of dollars each year in medical coverage and absenteeism. Employers need to pay attention to their workers' weights, for the good of the bottom line, as well as the good of the employees and of society."

Among the report's findings:

* Obesity is associated with a 36-percent increase in spending on healthcare services, more than smoking or problem drinking. More than 40 percent of U.S. companies have implemented obesity-reduction programs, and 24 percent more said they plan to do so in 2008.
* Estimates of ROI for wellness programs range from zero to $5 per $1 invested. ROI aside, these programs may give companies an edge in recruiting and retaining desirable employees. Meanwhile, some say it may be more effective just to award employees cash and prizes for weight loss rather than devote resources to long-term wellness programs.
* Employers need to weigh the risks of being too intrusive in managing obese employees against the risks of not managing them. There is evidence that as weight goes up, wages go down. Employers should be fully aware of any potential discrimination risk before addressing employees' weight, whether for the employee's own good or that of the company.
* The jury is still out on the costs and benefits of paying for employees' weight-loss surgeries. While obese employees medically eligible for bariatric surgery (about 9 percent of the workforce) have sharply higher obesity-related medical costs and absenteeism, some say companies are unlikely to recoup surgery costs before these employees have left for other jobs.
* How employers communicate a wellness or weight-loss program is as important as how they design it. Companies should involve employees in planning health initiatives, rather than working from the top-down, and should make sure personal privacy is protected.

The report includes three case studies: Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), a large self-insured utility with high BMI and low turnover, targets obesity as a major plank in its multifaceted wellness initiatives. H-E-B, a Texas-based retail chain, believes retail's high turnover can make it all the more important to catch employees, from checkout clerks to executives, under the wellness umbrella. And Aetna Inc. says that adding incentives increased participation in its wellness programs and produced major savings.

The Conference Board www.conference-board.org
Research Report 1419; April 9, 2008
http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=3365

Abstract: An increasing number of countries have implemented or are evaluating feebate systems in order to reduce energy consumption of new vehicle registrations. Anja Peters, Michel G. Mueller, Peter de Haan and Roland W. Scholz distinguish between absolute feebates based strictly on a vehicle's energy consumption and relative feebates normalizing energy consumption by a given car utility. This paper analyzes whether absolute or relative feebates encourage more consumers to change to vehicles with lower energy consumption. The authors combine an analysis of all car models on sale at the end of 2005 with survey data from 326 potential new car buyers. Analysis of the car fleet with regard to behavioral changes assumed as realistic shows that relative systems succeed better in offering more consumer groups cars that are eligible for incentives. Survey results suggest that consumers show some, but limited, willingness to change behavior to obtain an incentive. However, a relative system potentially allows people to switch to cars with higher relative efficiency without actually lowering absolute CO2 emissions. They discuss this inherent dilemma of simultaneously addressing more consumers and limiting counteracting effects. In order to find the optimal trade-off, we suggest assessing different parameters operationalizing vehicle utility by means of micro-simulation with detailed car fleet and differentiated consumer segments.

Keywords: Consumer behavior; Incentive schemes; Policy design

by Anja Peters, Michel G. Mueller, Peter de Haan and Roland W. Scholz; all of ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions, Natural and Social Science Interface, Universitaetstr. 22, CHN J 73.1, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; Tel.: +41 44 632 66 76; fax: +41 44 632 10 29.

Energy Policy via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 36, Issue 4; April, 2008; Pages 1355-1365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.11.002

At its World Press Days event on February 12, 2008 Autodesk, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK) announced updates to its software solutions for building information modeling (BIM) including Revit Architecture, Revit Structure, Revit MEP, AutoCAD Civil 3D, and Autodesk NavisWorks. BIM is an integrated workflow built on coordinated, reliable information about a project from design through construction and into operations. By adopting BIM, architects, engineers, contractors and owners can easily create coordinated, digital design information and documentation; use that information to accurately predict performance, appearance and cost; and reliably deliver the project faster, more economically and with reduced environmental impact.

-- Revit Architecture 2009 (BIM for architects and designers) allows customers to capture early design concepts with improved analysis and visualization capabilities via:
o Increased sustainable design and energy analysis capabilities through easy exchange with partner applications
o Improved visualization functionality with the new Mental Ray engine for rendering, improving speed, quality, and usability
...
Autodesk NavisWorks extend the value of BIM by enabling the aggregation of building information with data and geometry from other sources. By integrating building information, data, and geometry, Autodesk NavisWorks solutions enable the most complete understanding possible of the overall project, despite the use of multiple software platforms and applications -- improving coordination, collaboration, and project sequencing for design and construction projects.

AutoCAD Civil 3D 2009 enables the benefits of BIM for civil engineering, from surveying and design through to documentation submittal and the delivery of 3D models for GPS machine control during construction.

In addition Autodesk is expanding its portfolio of software solutions to support sustainable design in the architecture, engineering & construction (AEC) markets with the acquisition of technology assets of two energy analysis software companies. Autodesk announced that it has signed an agreement to acquire substantially all the assets of Green Building Studio, a ... provider of web-based building energy analysis that enables architects and engineers to easily perform whole building energy analysis early in the design process. Autodesk also announced that it has acquired substantially all the assets of Carmel Software Corporation, a developer of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) mechanical engineering software that enables engineers and architects to analyze their mechanical designs and help ensure sustainability goals are achieved. Terms of the acquisitions were not disclosed.

Green Building Studio Inc. developed the Green Building XML (gbXML) schema and launched the Green Building Studio web service in 2004. The web service offers whole building energy, carbon, and other analysis tools for architects and designers using CAD and BIM software from Autodesk and other industry providers. Green Building Studio provides the ability to quickly and efficiently analyze building design proposals, providing building performance information to support sustainable design. Autodesk currently plans to continue support for the Green Building Studio web service and gbXML as an open standard, and to strengthen the web service's integration with its BIM software.

To read more about how Autodesk and its customers are addressing sustainable design, please visit http://www.autodesk.com/green.

Autodesk www.autodesk.com
http://pressreleases.autodesk.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=381%3C%2Ftd%3E
http://pressreleases.autodesk.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=385%3C%2Ftd%3E

Although North America, Western Europe, and Japan continue to account for the bulk of the global environmental market, environmental regulations – the most important factors influencing the growth of the environmental industry – have become increasingly stringent among these developed countries. Moreover, integration of business decisions with environmental issues, reduction in global trade barriers, greater globalization as well as industrial investments, and the rising awareness of environmental issues have also been driving industry growth. A healthy economic background is a huge stimulus for the environmental industry and favorable economic relations with countries in Asia and the European Union (EU) increase the industry revenue. The environmental sectors in these two regions have received a further boost from trade and investment policies. General economic policies have greatly affected this demand-driven industry and industry-specific policies, wherever enforced, have provided added impetus.

Japan’s environmental industry has raised its market value by exporting most of its sophisticated and cutting-edge technology and pollution-control equipment to countries such as India, China, South Korea, the EU, and the United States. This growth has been helped along by constant technological advances and the Government’s pro-environmental policies, economic assistance, and buying power. In fact, the Government is one of the largest procuring end users. While the infrastructure facilities in Japan’s major towns and cities are technologically advanced, the Government is focusing on expanding and renewing water and wastewater facilities in rural areas and certain towns. Most district governments are looking for companies that will help them upgrade their solid waste treatment facilities. Although domestic companies have an edge in the bids for local projects, foreign companies are expected to be expand their presence from 2008 to 2011.

The industry’s competency in environmental technology has helped it register a large number of environment-related patents every year. The industry is characterized by high industrial production, mass consumption, and stringent measures from the Government. The industry is significantly populated, and client-supplier relationships are friendly. The industry also performs an accurate evaluation of environmental performance, offering a very conducive environment for further growth.

This Frost & Sullivan Country Industry Forecast service for the Japanese Environmental industry uses a macroeconomic perspective to provide a focused analysis of the industry. This research service covers an array of issues pertinent to the environmental industry, ranging from political stances, trade policies, and industry regulations, along with their overall impact. Besides enabling decision makers to assess the impact of non-market forces, this analysis also helps in identifying new opportunities in the industry. In addition, it provides a strong base for preparing business contingency plans. In addition, investors can assess industry-specific risk factors as well as conduct a more in-depth micro research.

Frost & Sullivan Growth Partnership Service

Based on extensive and in-depth research, real-world consulting work, and growth strategies tested in hundreds of companies across many industries, Frost & Sullivan has evolved its Growth Partnership Services (GPS) program to accelerate growth for both established and emerging firms. GPS provides our growth partners with actionable research and best practices to guide day-to-day behavior, minimize risk, uncover new opportunities, and drive growth.

The foundation of Frost & Sullivan's GPS includes:
- Proprietary T.E.A.M. Methodology integrating all 6 critical research perspectives
- 32 global offices ensuring both global and regional expertise and perspective
- Research and consulting teams identifying new opportunities and developing growth strategies
- Broad spectrum of industry and technology coverage uncovering innovative ideas and opportunities inside and outside the market

Benefits of this Service

Identify New Market Opportunities
The trends of Japan’s economic environment have been analyzed along with their impact on the environmental industry. This analysis will provide valuable information to industry participants on market opportunities in specific segments of the industry.

Comprehend Future Industry Trends
The research service gives an insight into the Japanese environmental industry, discusses its dependence on the prevailing economic scenario, and describes the various infrastructure developments in the industry. This will enable participants to gauge the direction of the industry, enabling them to devise appropriate strategies to improve market share.

Understand Economic Environment
A detailed analysis of the economic framework of the Japanese environmental industry provides insights into the economic parameters, as they exist, and the future direction of the same. This is particularly beneficial in the case of the environmental industry, as these economic indicators form an important criterion for industry performance.

Devise Country Entry Strategies
The research service provides valuable information and analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the economy of Japan, which are relevant to the environmental industry. This is particularly useful in devising country-specific strategies for industry participants.

Evaluate Industry Segment Potential
This research service offers detailed coverage of the economic and infrastructure indicators affecting the industry and their future direction. It provides both country and industry trends and forecasts for major variables and is an excellent tool for companies that plan to enter new geographic markets. This will help corporate planners in developing accurate business plans.

1. Introduction
- 1. Industry Overview
-- 1. Snapshot of the Industry
-- 2. Definition of Industry Segments

2. Economic Analysis and Forecasts
- 1. Economic Overview
-- 1. Economic Trends
-- 2. Economic Forecasts
-- 3. Relation between the Economy and Industry

3. Industry Profile
- 1. Industry Structure and Profile
-- 1. Overview of the Japanese Environmental Industry
-- 2. Segments of the Industry

4. Social Analysis
- 1. Demographic Trends
-- 1. Demographic Profile and Impact on the Industry
-- 2. End-User Analysis for the Industry

5. Infrastructure Analysis
- 1. Infrastructure Analysis for the Environmental Industry
-- 1. General Infrastructure
-- 2. Infrastructure for the Environmental Industry

6. Implications and Growth Opportunities
- 1. Implications of Key Trends on the Industry
-- 1. Key Trends and their Implications
- 2. Growth Opportunities
-- 1. Growth Opportunities in the Japanese Environmental Industry

by Frost & Sullivan via Research and Markets www.ResearchandMarkets.com
February, 2008, Pages: 37; $289
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id=591034

Abstract: Energy saving and innovation are currently the subjects of much research. In this study we use the Cobb–Douglas (C–D) type production function to estimate the impact of energy saving technologies and innovation investments on the productive efficiency of Chinese iron and steel enterprises for the period 1990–2000. It is shown from the study results that some productive efficiency growth can be attributed to the adoption and amelioration of energy saving measures (pulverized coal injection technology, PCI; continuous casting technology, CCT) and the increase of technique updating and transformation (TUT) investments associated with energy saving. It is also found that the big enterprises possess a substantial efficiency advantage over small- and medium-sized steel makers. Finally, according to this study, enterprises in some certain locations may gain from the economies of agglomeration and hence perform better than others. The policy implications of this study provide an important rationale for the ongoing centralized merger campaign of the iron and steel industry in China. To accelerate the diffusion of advanced energy efficient technologies and encourage innovation will promote the productive efficiency.

Keywords: Energy saving; Efficiency; Iron and steel

by Jianling Zhang and Guoshun Wang; both of School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, People's Republic of China; Tel.: +86 731 8877940; fax: +86 731 8710006.

Energy via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 33, Issue 4; April, 2008; Pages 525-537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.11.002

Matthew D. Adler and Paul Dolan introduce a new “different lives” survey format, which asks respondents to rank hypothetical lives described in terms of longevity, health, happiness, income, and other elements of the quality of life. In this short paper, they show that the format is of policy relevance whether a mental state, preference satisfaction or extra-welfarist account of well-being is adopted and discuss some of the advantages the format has over standard formats, such as contingent valuation surveys and QALY-type methods. An exploratory survey indicates that the format is feasible and that health and happiness might be more important than income and life expectancy.

by Matthew D. Adler and Paul Dolan
AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies www.reg-markets.org
Working Paper 08-11; April, 2008
The AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies was founded by Bob Hahn in 2008 as the successor to the AEI-Brookings Joint Center. A primary aim of the Reg-Markets Center is to gain a deeper understanding of how markets, laws and regulation contribute to economic well-being. The Center will be an independent voice in policy debates.
http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1449&PHPSESSID=98d2bc04eb28e98a0c32fab0c09ceaa9

There are a variety of policy tools to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. This installment of the Climate Change 101 series explains how a cap-and-trade program sets a clear limit on greenhouse gas emissions and minimizes the costs of achieving this target. By creating a market, and a price, for emission reductions, cap and trade offers an environmentally effective and economically efficient response to climate change.

This brief is part of a series called Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Pew Center on the States.

What is “Cap and Trade”?
Policymakers have many options as they consider how to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, but two approaches are most prominent: traditional command-and-control regulation, in which regulatory authorities direct how emissions limits will be achieved, and market-based approaches, which harness the forces of supply and demand to change behavior and achieve environmental goals. One proven market-based approach is cap and trade.

In a cap-and-trade program, the government determines which facilities or emissions are covered by the program and sets an overall emission target, or “cap,” for covered entities.
This cap is the sum of all allowed emissions from all included facilities.

Once the cap has been set and covered entities specified, tradable emissions allowances (rights to emit) are distributed (either auctioned, or freely allocated, or some combination of these). Each allowance authorizes the release of a specified amount of greenhouse gas emissions, generally one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).1 The total number of allowances is equivalent to the overall emissions cap (e.g., if a cap of one million tons of emissions is set, one million one-ton allowances will be issued). Covered entities must submit allowances equivalent to the level of emissions for which they are responsible at the end of each of the program’s compliance periods.

Alternatively, the government could establish a cap-and-trade system, setting an overall emissions cap of 600 tons and then issuing 600 emissions allowances. If allowances were evenly distributed, both emitters would have an incentive to trade because emissions reduction costs are higher for A than for B. Emitter B might cut emissions by 200 tons and sell its excess allowances to Emitter A for less than it would have cost Emitter A to make the reductions itself (for example, $2,500 for 100 allowances). In this scenario, the desired level of emissions is reached at a lower total cost of $4,500 and a lower cost per ton of $15. The total cost is lower, as is the cost for each regulated facility.
...
Other sections:
Driving Innovation
Cap and Trade Market Design
Cost Containment Mechanisms
Allowance Distribution
Tax or Trade?
Greenhouse Gas Trading in Practice
The Benefits of Cap and Trade
Cap and Trade Key Terms Glossary

Pew Center on Global Climate Change www.pewclimate.org
2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 550; Arlington, VA 22201;
Phone (703) 516-4146
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is a non-profit, non-partisan, independent organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions in the effort to address global climate change.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Cap&Trade.pdf

ProLogis (NYSE: PLD), the world's largest owner, manager and developer of distribution facilities, announced today that it has entered into an agreement to lease roof space to Southern California Edison (SCE), the largest electric utility in California, as a part of the utility's new solar power program.

In the initial phase of this program, the utility will lease 607,000 square feet of roof space at ProLogis' Kaiser Distribution Park in Fontana, California. The area will be used to install and maintain solar panels with the potential to generate enough electricity to power 1,426 households for one year. At the conclusion of the start-up phase, which will include five to 10 additional installations and is expected to be completed by the end of 2008, the utility will launch its full renewable energy project, aiming to complete 50 megawatts (MW) of solar panel installations each year for a total of 250 MW -- the largest U.S. facility of its kind. Each individual installation is expected to comprise one to two megawatts.

"This project has the potential to become a breakthrough solar energy program," said Jeffrey H. Schwartz, ProLogis chairman and chief executive officer....

All energy harnessed from the installation will flow into the neighboring electrical grid and help meet Southern California's energy needs. As the largest industrial owner and developer in Southern California, ProLogis has the capability to support SCE's ongoing requirements and will help to fulfill the program's need for vast amounts of roof space -- the company owns 180 distribution facilities in SCE's territory comprising more than 41 million square feet, the majority of which are eligible for SCE's program.

ProLogis also has a total of one megawatt of solar panel projects installed or under development in Europe. At ProLogis Park Chanteloup in France the company has installed roof-mounted solar panels, generating electricity that is incorporated back into the local French utility power grid. In Spain, at ProLogis Park Penedes, the company installed state-of-the-art, amorphous silicon solar panels that produce electricity using a wider spectrum of light than traditional crystalline technology, thus enabling maximum output.

"Our experience to date in France and Spain has shown that we can effectively use rooftop solar panels to generate environmentally conscious, renewable energy, meeting the needs of local communities while also enhancing the return on investment from our properties," said Jack Rizzo, managing director of global construction at ProLogis. "Our agreement with SCE is the first of its kind in the United States and lays the groundwork for similar programs throughout the country. With more than 500 million square feet of roof space worldwide, we see continued potential in harnessing the power of solar energy from our rooftops." ProLogis owns, manages or is in the process of developing 510 million square feet of distribution space worldwide, equivalent to about 11,700 acres, or roughly 18.3 square miles.

Ratepayers will be asked to foot the bill. SCE has asked the California Public Utilities Commission for approval of the five-year solar installation plan, which it estimates will cost $875 million in today's dollars.

Prologis www.Prologis.com
http://prologis.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=438
Southern California Edison Video Interview www.sce.com
http://www.sce.com/nrc/mediarelations/solarevent/interview.html
Costar www.costar.com
http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=152BDF3A40AA221BF66B84A9A0C9581F&ref=1&src=rss

The Exxon Valdez oil spill, which caused a 3,000-square-mile oil slick and still affects Alaska’s fisheries after nearly 19 years, was a “tragedy,” Exxon’s lawyer told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

But the company has been punished enough by $3.4 billion in criminal fines, cleanup costs and compensation payments, the lawyer added, arguing that the $2.5 billion in punitive damages approved by a federal appeals court served no additional “public purpose.”

Exxon’s appeal of the biggest punitive damage award ever upheld in federal court led to a lively Supreme Court argument in which everything was open to dispute, from the significance of a 200-year-old case about robbery on the high seas to the world of modern maritime commerce in which a 1,000-foot tanker like the Exxon Valdez is considered a separate “business unit” in the organization chart of its corporate owner.

With Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. not participating, a result of his ownership of Exxon Mobil stock, the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie was clearly present. A tie would affirm the appeals court’s judgment in favor of a class of 32,000 fishermen and business owners, who stand to receive about $75,000 apiece from the $2.5 billion award. It was abundantly clear to everyone in the crowded courtroom that if the plaintiffs could just hold on to four votes, they would win the case.
...
One of Exxon’s arguments on appeal is that the Supreme Court’s precedents foreclose awarding punitive damages against a ship’s owner for the misdeeds of the captain.
...
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also appeared sympathetic to Exxon. “I don’t see what more a corporation can do” to protect itself from employees who violate explicit company policy, like a no-drinking rule, he told Mr. Fisher.
...
When the justices agreed in October to hear Exxon’s appeal, they limited their review to questions of maritime law and excluded a more general question about the constitutionality of the punitive damage award. Consequently, the eventual decision is not likely to affect punitive damages in nonmaritime cases.

By Linda Greenhouse
The New York Times www.NYTimes.com
Published: February 28, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/washington/28scotus.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Abstract: Based on U.S. data for the 48-year-period 1953–2000, this study makes a contribution on the R&D-growth relation along five dimensions. First, we note several descriptive patterns that may be regarded as stylized facts relative to R&D outlays in the U.S. during the half-century period. These include (a) a dramatic increase in the share of non-federal R&D outlays, (b) a corresponding decline in the share of federally funded R&D expenditure, and (c) an even more dramatic decline in the share of defense R&D spending. Second, in a departure from most of the literature on the topic, we study the R&D-growth nexus at a disaggregated level by considering the roles of federal, non-federal, and defense R&D outlays. Third, we use the relatively new bounds-testing and ARDL (autoregressive distributed lag) procedures of Pesaran et al. [Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289–326] to estimate the (long run) relation between R&D outlays and growth in a fairly standard model. Fourth, contrary to the almost universal belief, our estimates indicate a larger role of federal R&D relative to non-federal R&D in growth, and also a stronger role of defense R&D than of non-defense (federal) R&D. Last, to the extent our estimates are reasonable, the above-noted temporal movements in the shares of federal, non-federal, and defense R&D outlays seem to reflect socially perverse trends in the context of economic growth and well-being, and indicate the need for appropriate policy interventions for a substantial enhancement of federal defense R&D and non-defense R&D outlays.

Keywords: R&D; Economic growth; Defense R&D; Federal R&D; Non-federal R&D

by Rajeev K. Goel, James E. Payne and Rati Ram; all of Illinois State University, Economics Department, Normal, IL 61790-4200, USA. Tel.: +1 309 438 7101; fax: +1 309 438 5228.

Journal of Policy Modeling via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 30, Issue 2; March-April 2008; Pages 237-250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2007.04.008

An analytic chapter in the IMF's April 2008 World Economic Outlook, entitled "Climate Change and the Global Economy," examines the macroeconomic and financial consequences of policies aimed at mitigating climate change. It finds that putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change would have an adverse effect on productivity and economic growth. Saving and investment, capital flows, and exchange rates are also likely to be affected.

To minimize the costs of mitigation policies, it would be critical to aim at a long-term and credible policy framework that is flexible enough to adjust to emerging information and changing economic conditions. Also, the policies need to be implemented as broadly as possible, while ensuring that costs are equitably distributed across countries.

In addition, The March 2008 issue of the IMF's quarterly magazine Finance & Development tries to further the debate on the effects of climate change, warning that farm production will fall dramatically—especially in developing countries—if steps are not taken to curb carbon emissions. Other articles in the magazine on this theme argue that policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions need not hobble economies, that financial markets can help address climate change, that fiscal instruments can help countries adapt, and that the problems of climate change and sustainable development could be solved together.

By Natalia Tamirisa
IMF Research Department
April 3, 2008

The following articles are in the magazine:

Climate Change and the Economy
Natalia Tamirisa
Climate change can be addressed without either hurting macroeconomic stability and growth or putting an undue burden on the countries least able to bear the costs of policies. If policies are well designed, their economic costs should be manageable.

Global Warming and Agriculture
William R. Cline
If steps are not taken to curb carbon emissions, agricultural productivity could fall dramatically, especially in developing countries. It is therefore strongly in these countries' own interest that they participate actively in international emissions abatement programs.

Paying for Climate Change
Benjamin Jones, Michael Keen, and Jon Strand
Governments must manage the incentives for households and firms to counter and adapt to climate change. The role of fiscal instruments is central—indeed, indispensable—for both mitigating and adapting to climate change.

The Greening of Markets
Paul Mills
Recognizing how financial markets will react to climate change initiatives, and how they can best promote mitigation and adaptation, will become crucial to shaping future policy and minimizing its costs.

Rising Temperatures, Rising Risks
Mohan Munasinghe
Although climate change and sustainable development are complex, interlinked problems that pose a challenge to humanity, they could be solved together by integrating adaptation and mitigation response measures into the broader rubric of sustainable development strategies.

A webcast is also available at this site.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) www.IMF.org
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/RES040308C.htm

The U.S. manufacturing sector spent $5.9 billion dollars on capital expenditures and $20.7 billion dollars on operating costs for pollution prevention and treatment in 2005. These figures represent less than five percent of total new capital expenditures and less than one percent of total revenue for the sector, respectively.

The estimates, which to EPA's knowledge are the most comprehensive publicly available, were reported today in a U.S. Census report, "Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE): 2005". The PACE report is the latest in a series conducted since 1973 to assess annual costs for pollution abatement by the manufacturing sector. This is the first year of data since EPA, in consultation with U.S. Census, began a multi-year effort to evaluate the quality of the survey instrument, and the accuracy and reliability of the data collected in the survey responses. As a result, an improved survey was developed by EPA and administered by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2006 to collect the 2005 expenditure data.

The report provides additional details on pollution abatement expenditures, categorized by type of pollution media and abatement activity by industry and state. The reported costs include capital and operating costs for treatment/capture, prevention, recycling, and disposal, as well as depreciation of pollution abatement equipment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) www.EPA.gov
Press Release dated April 9, 2008
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/pace2005.html