Richardson's Revised Energy Plan

Bill Richardson announced his official energy proposal in a speech to the New America Foundation today. He already had a fairly fleshed out energy plan, but this was the official rollout and he did make a few tweaks. Here are the highlights, directly from the just updated Choices for Working Californians Bill Richardson on Environment page.

Governor Richardson wants to cut oil demand by 50% by 2020 and change to 50% renewable sources for electricity by 2040. He wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% by 2040. He also believes it is crucial to lead by example and restore America as the world's leader on the environment. Richardson contends that we can do all of this without breaking the bank.

Previously, Richardson was calling for a 75% greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 now it is 80% by 2040. This is a significant and aggressive move, something Richardson notes is "10 years faster than what scientists say is necessary". A more minor change sees his call for CAFE standards to be raised to 50mpg by 2020, instead of in "10 years".

He is already getting high remarks in the larger blogosphere for his emphasis on transportation in his speech. Unfortunately, it is nowhere in his policy statement, but it is one place where he is definitely separating himself from the competition. Any talk about reducing oil dependency and greenhouse gases should go hand in hand with a discussion on public transportation and smart growth strategies.

Matt Yglesias says:

I particularly liked his insistence on the idea that most people underplay the role of transportation and land use policy in the energy puzzle. This was appealing because it's what I already thought, but Richardson said it totally unprompted, and it's true. More fuel efficiency is good, and more renewable energy is also good, but we're also going to need people to drive less. And that's going to mean that we'll need policies that make it realistic for people to do so -- mass-transit, but also transit-friendly, high-density constructions.

Atrios notes his post and adds:

This is basically the deal. We need to increase the proportion of the population who live in areas where one car per driving age household member isn't a necessity. Well-designed mass transit and pedestrian transit-oriented development is a requirement for that. I think it's wrong to see it simply as encouraging "high-density constructions," as there are plenty of places which are actually quite dense, but are dense in stupid ways and lack adequate transit. The flip side is there are places with adequate transit (certain suburban rail lines) which lack density in the appropriate places (Nimbyism, sometimes understandable, is often the cause).

Here is a PTV video excerpt from the speech today. Click here for more videos from the speech.