142. See U.S. Department of Transportation. 1998. Transportation and Global Climate Change: A Review and
Analysis of the Literature. DOT T 97 03. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
143. For a discussion, see Southworth, F. 2001. On the potential impacts of land use change policies on
automobile vehicle miles of travel. Energy Policy Journal 29:1271 1283.
144. Future travel pricing strategies are likely to benefit from real time traffic information (through, for example,
data collected by in the pavement traffic sensors). This information can be used to charge travelers on the basis of when as
well as where they travel, with higher fees charged for travel at congested times and in congested locations. For definitions
and examples, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Congestion Pricing,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/aa/tcmsitei.nsf/0/647e950797e1f217852565d90073f4e6?OpenDocument#rec, December 6, 2004.
145. Southworth and Jones, 1996, op cit. Also see Greene, D.L., and A. Schafer. 2003. Reducing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.
146. Source: Prindle, W., N. Dietsch, R. Neal Elliott, M Kushler, T. Langer, and S. Nadel. 2003. Energy
Efficiency's Next Generation: Innovation at the State Level. Report Number E031. American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.
147. See Sterner, T. 2003. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management.
Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC. This report provides a taxonomy of available policy instruments that
include direct regulation, also sometimes termed command and control; quantity instruments such as tradable permits;
price instruments such as tax incentives and subsidies for R&D; and information and education policies. Similar tax
onomies are described in Brown, M.A., and D.W. Jones. 1989. Policies and Measures for Reducing Energy Related
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Lessons from Recent Literature. DOE/PO 0047. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy
and International Affairs, Washington, DC, pp. 3 1 3 51, July. See also Gillingham, K., R. Newell, and K. Palmer, 2004.
Retrospective Review of Energy Efficiency Programs, RFF Discussion Paper 04 19rev. Washington, DC. Forthcoming,
Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
148. Prindle et al., 2003, op cit. The California Title 24 standards are energy efficient standards for residen
tial and non residential buildings.
149. The Building Codes Assistance Project Bimonthly Newsletter. 2004. The Building Codes Assistance
Project Bimonthly Newsletter, http://22.214.171.124/newsletters/BCAP_0904_Newsletter.htm, February 4, 2005.
150. Prindle et al., 2003, op cit. Jones, T., D. Norland, and W. Prindle. 1998. Opportunity Lost: Better Energy
Codes for Affordable Housing and a Cleaner Environment. Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC, http://www.e
star.com/pdf/opplost.pdf, February 19, 2005.
151. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2000. Clean Energy Partnerships: A Decade of
Success. DOE/EE 0213. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, March.
152. Rosenquist, G., M. McNeil, M. Iyer, S. Meyers, and J. McMahon. 2004. Energy Efficiency Standards and
Codes for Residential/Commercial Equipment and Buildings: Additional Opportunities. National Commission on Energy
Policy Washington, DC, http://www.energycommission.org, February 27, 2005.
153. For residential building codes, the analysis was conducted for each Census Division; each Division had a
specific baseline construction practice with respect to insulation and glazing. Measures were selected in each Census
Division that have a simple payback of less than 15 years. To obtain national averages, a weighted average was calculated
to reflect the relevant shares of new housing construction in each Census Division. For commercial codes, construction
practices for glazing were considered for hot and cold climate zones; for lighting, watts per square foot (i.e., lighting
power densities) were considered for different building types. Lighting measures were selected that are cost effective
towards meeting the ASHRAE 90 1 2004 amendment for a standard that would become effective in 2015. For glazing,
measures were selected that had a minimum life cycle cost for each building type. To obtain national estimates, a weight
ed average was calculated based on shares of new construction by building type. Source: Rosenquist, 2005, op cit.
154. Tribble, A., K. Offringa, B. Prindle, D. Arasteh, J. Zarnikau, A. Stewart, and K. Nittler. 2002. Energy
efficient windows in the southern residential windows market. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.
Towards a Climate Friendly