For kicks I decided to run the 2011 data(minus the air conditioner months of June through September) through a linear regression. A polynomial equation fits the data better, but the linear equation gives me a nice multiplier to work with. Here is my graph.

IEE’s report didn’t get at how each dollar of utility energy efficiency money was spent, though it’s clear that the majority is still coming from simple steps like replacing lights and appliances with newer, more efficient models, as well as encouraging people to change behavior in energy-saving ways, Wood said.

In my comment I pointed out that when our heat pump broke down in 2010, we were going to buy a high efficiency heat pump regardless of the rebate. Although the rebate was appreciated it was not very important in our decision. The other major energy efficient effort by our utility was to give away compact fluorescent lights(CFL). Since I already had extra CFLs on my shelf I will probably not use these new CFLs for a couple of years. From my experience rate reduction was a better use of money that more people can take advantage of.

In a subsequent comment I was surprised to find that this comment offended someone and he attempted to defend the policy by claiming that he knew what I would really do. Here is the quote,

How can you really say you would have purchased the high efficiency model? What people say is often not what they do – despite what classic economic theory says about rational behavior.

So I went back and reviewed the marketing brochures, cost estimates, and the decisions made by my wife and myself in replacing the heat pump. My conclusion is unchanged except I am now convinced that the energy efficiency experts slept through their Marketing 101 class. The most important reason my wife and I were going to buy a high efficiency model is that buying a low cost, inefficient model was not an option. Using the 2010 Bryant brochure as an example we were offered three different models that varied from the less expensive model with a 13+ SEER and  9 HSPF to the most expensive model with a 16+ SEER and 9 HSPF. It is interesting to note that all of the brochures talked primarily about performance, warranty, and special additions available on the more expensive models.  None of the brochures used the rebate as a selling point. By chance one of the brochures mentioned  that the Energy Department had decided in 2006 that all new AC units or heat pumps would have a minimum of 13  SEER. When I look at various 2010 brochures it appears that all of the manufacturers complied. From a general viewpoint it is easy to conclude that the 2006 Energy Department decision was primarily responsible for the energy efficiency gains. It is this simple stuff that "green" investment advocates cannot get a handle on.

Even if we delve into more specifics, the argument for energy efficiency rebates does not get any better. At our house we consume half of our annual electric power in the three coldest months. Naturally the most important energy efficiency specification is the heating system performance(HSPF). Since our old heat pump had a 9.2 SEER and an unknown but undoubtedly low HSPF, I was happy with all of the models offered by Bryant. All of the specifications were much better but the heating system performance had improved dramatically for heat pumps in the last ten years. My wife had an additional requirement, she wanted a heat pump with a good warranty. She wanted the moderately expensive model since it had a good warranty. It was nice that it qualified for the energy rebate but as you can see it was not an important factor in our decision making. Since the HSPF numbers for the different models were the same, our annual kilowatt usage was going to be about the same regardless of the model we selected.

Whichever way I looked at energy efficiency rebates, it was primarily a political idea that was not going to change our behavior. I suspect other people replacing AC and heat pumps came to the same conclusions. The rebate was 3% of the total bill. Since the rebate is no longer being offered in 2012, I have to conclude that the saner minds in government agree that this an incentive we can live without. I chalk this up as another #greenfail like the bankrupt firms of Solyndra and Ener1. Much ado about nothing!

Yes, I know the authors collected a lot of valuable economic history but unless you get excited over lots of charts, it is a very dry read.

This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
by Carmen M. Reinhart & Kenneth S. Rogoff

Charles Murray has a new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. The Powerline blog had a nice bit about the book and a link to the quiz. I was curious so I took the quiz. Here are my results.

How Thick Is Your Bubble? Guest Score » 13 out of 20  (65% )  Result  On a scale from 0 to 20 points, where 20 signifies full engagement with mainstream American culture and 0 signifies deep cultural isolation within the new upper class bubble, you scored between 13 and 16. In other words, you don’t even have a bubble. Quiz School Take this quiz & get your score

As a fan of the Dave Ramsey show the audio books was an enjoyable review of much of the same stuff you hear over the radio.

The Original Argument audiobook is an interesting Glenn Beck project. Glenn Beck and others have translated many of the original Federalist Papers from the 18^th century English into an easier to understand 21^st century English. The objective was to make the Federalist Papers more accessible to the average person and I think he achieved that. In this book we find Alexander Hamilton and James Madison making persuasive arguments for a more powerful federal government primarily because they felt a federal effort would be more efficient and cost less than independent state efforts. From their viewpoint it was a win-win decision for the country. Although I agree with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison about the benefits of a strong federal government, I think they would be shocked to see how the balance of power has shifted from the states to the federal government. Most of the safeguards for the state that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison described have been dismantled over the years. Not only are senators directly elected by the people but the states are increasing dependent on the federal government for their revenue as shown below.  The culmination of this dismantling effort can be seen in the lawsuits over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. This year lawyers will make many of same federal versus state rights arguments before the Supreme Court that was argued originally in the Federalist Papers. I doubt any of lawyers will attempt to make the argument that the Affordable Care Act is more efficient substitute or enhancement of existing state programs. The fact that the federal government can pay for the expansion via deficit spending is a bad reason to expand Medicaid. I would be more in favor of a practice that encourages responsible governing practices.

See this Cato essay on federal subsidies to the states for more on why it is critical to reverse this trend.

The second mixer I bought was the Cuisinart CSB-77 Smart Stick Hand Blender with Whisk and Chopper Attachments. I thought that this might be a better “mixer” for her considering her diminished arm strength. I think I remember seeing a cooking show extol the virtues of this blender so I kept if for myself. She didn’t want anything to do with it so I ended up taking it home. It serves me as a small, portable food processor that is convenient to clean up. I used it for pureeing tomatoes in the can.

“it’s not that I am a great debater,” Mr. Gingrich said Saturday. “It’s that I articulate the deepest-held values of the American people.”

As was expected the crowd response was favorable since both men were “preaching to the choir”. Their connection with their audience is no different than President Obama’s connection with his audience. This is one of the most importance characteristics of successful politicians.

If these candidates continue to have successful public appearances the presidential race will probably be determined by how people view the successes and failures of our government under Presidential Obama. The biggest problems with President Obama’s signature health care act and stimulus plan is that they have not made a difference that the average person can see. Most people have seen their health care costs go up and the expansion of Medicaid is on hold since most of the states do not have the money. The continued high unemployment rate condemns the stimulus plan. With high disapproval ratings among independents President Obama has an almost impossible task in front of him. If he is to win re-election he needs a lot of help from the Republican candidates. If the Republican candidates do not screw up, he will be a one term president.

Another thing I noticed in the campaign speeches is the repetition of some new catch phrases. It should be interesting how the phrases, “Food Stamp President”, “Crony Capitalism”, and “Anti-Job President” play in a broader political audience. The “Anti-Job President” phrase was a new phrase for me. Based on the polling numbers the Keystone Pipeline decision looks like a bad political gamble for the President in an election year. Jobs is the number one political issue and the administration does not have a lot of job creation successes to talk about on the campaign trail. Considering the present economic climate does the President really think that environmental concerns with the pipeline are more important than job growth to independent voters? There is a difference between a “Do No Harm” President and a “Do Nothing” President and I think the polling shows that independent voters can tell the difference.

For those who are more scientifically inclined the Sea Ice Reference Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/, is a great resource.

My wife started the process by calling one of her friends who is a gun enthusiast for advice. About a week later we went to a local gun store. The store has a gun range and instructors. After about two hours of asking questions and trying various handguns she settled on the Beretta M9. Since we are novices they highly recommended they we go through a training course. As part of the deal they gave us a couple of coupons for time on the range. She was happy.

Tonight we are going to the handgun training course at the gun store. This should be fun.