<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for New energy proposal in California]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Gar Lipow</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/california-makes-efficiency-business-as-usual/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:52:57 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/california-makes-efficiency-business-as-usual/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Why wait until 2020 and 2030</strong></p><p>Green buildings are where tech is most advanced.</p><p>
Why not require that all buildings not already permitted by December 2007 be net zero - or at most 10% of 2007 averages?</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Why wait until 2020 and 2030</strong></p><p>Green buildings are where tech is most advanced.</p><p>
Why not require that all buildings not already permitted by December 2007 be net zero - or at most 10% of 2007 averages?</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by nycowboy</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/california-makes-efficiency-business-as-usual/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:39:35 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/california-makes-efficiency-business-as-usual/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Great News</strong></p><p>Great News.</p><p>
Policies like this will move our country forward. For small applications like individual houses, it's clear that microhydro and solar will work well. For larger applications, there is co-generation, that can create heat and electric, by burning fossil fuels efficently on site, rather then wasting so much energy as convention systems currently do.</p><p>
I would hope that this proposal would include more in investment in pump storage. That's a technology, whose use will have to grow as we use more renewable sources of energy. Done right, it's environmental impact can be done minimally (and be largely self-contained), done wrong, it can destroy whole ecosystems (like the proposed Storm King Project that would dump directly in the Hudson River).</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Great News</strong></p><p>Great News.</p><p>
Policies like this will move our country forward. For small applications like individual houses, it's clear that microhydro and solar will work well. For larger applications, there is co-generation, that can create heat and electric, by burning fossil fuels efficently on site, rather then wasting so much energy as convention systems currently do.</p><p>
I would hope that this proposal would include more in investment in pump storage. That's a technology, whose use will have to grow as we use more renewable sources of energy. Done right, it's environmental impact can be done minimally (and be largely self-contained), done wrong, it can destroy whole ecosystems (like the proposed Storm King Project that would dump directly in the Hudson River).</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by greenlagirl</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/california-makes-efficiency-business-as-usual/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:20:55 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/california-makes-efficiency-business-as-usual/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Proposed or approved?<p>Hey Joseph -- I'm a bit confused as to the status of this thing, and was hoping you could clarify. On <a href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/72994.htm" rel="nofollow">this link you provided, it says the PUC <strong>approved this plan of action. But on the <a href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/electric/energy+efficiency/070917_eepd.htm" rel="nofollow">other link you provided, it says the plan's at the proposal stage, scheduled to come before the PUC for decision on Oct. 18, 2007. Which is it? Am I missing some nuanced distinction somewhere? Confused --

<p>http://greenlagirl.com/</p></a></strong></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Proposed or approved?<p>Hey Joseph -- I'm a bit confused as to the status of this thing, and was hoping you could clarify. On <a href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/72994.htm" rel="nofollow">this link you provided, it says the PUC <strong>approved this plan of action. But on the <a href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/electric/energy+efficiency/070917_eepd.htm" rel="nofollow">other link you provided, it says the plan's at the proposal stage, scheduled to come before the PUC for decision on Oct. 18, 2007. Which is it? Am I missing some nuanced distinction somewhere? Confused --

<p>http://greenlagirl.com/</p></a></strong></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>