San Mateo: energy saving with stimulus funds

San Mateo has moved forward with an application for stimulus funds ("Energy Efficiency Block Grants"). The funds, already set aside for San Mateo and require only for the application to have appropriate projects, will be applied to three clean energy projects.

The federal government has set aside almost $900,000 for energy-saving projects in San Mateo as part of the economic stimulus package.

But to claim the money, city officials must submit an application outlining specific projects before June 25.

On Monday night, the city council unanimously approved three proposals, which will be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Energy for approval. They include installing a renewable solar energy system on the main library's roof, replacing standard streetlight bulbs with LED bulbs and implementing a residential energy audit for city homes.

Plans for San Mateo's main library, constructed in 2006, included a solar system on the roof. However, the city couldn't install the system right away because it lacked the funds. With $400,000 of the federal Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant, the city can construct a 53.2 kilowatt system, according to a June 15 staff report.

The solar system will save $39,000 in electricity costs in its first year, the report said.

"Our library is the heart of our city," Deputy Mayor John Lee said at the meeting. "We're putting a pacemaker on top of it."

The city streetlight bulb replacement project would cost about $300,000 and save about 80,300 kilowatt hours of energy each year, as well as $26,000, the report said.

San Mateo would pay 50 percent of the costs for the residential energy audit and tune-up program, which would reach about 665 single-family homes over a three-year period.

"Currently, the build environment, which includes residential housing stock, emits approximately 42 percent of the total carbon emissions in the city," according to the report. "Implementing a city-wide energy audit and tune-up program targeting 665 homes would generate approximately 233 tons of CO2 reduction and 3,325 Mbtu per year."

Local IBM team drives battery effort

IBM jumps into the battery game with consortium led by local team reports BusinessWeek.

On June 23, IBM announced a multiyear effort to increase the performance of rechargeable batteries by a factor of 10. The aim is to design batteries that will make it possible for electric vehicles to travel 300 to 500 miles on a single charge, up from 50 to 100 miles currently. "We want to see if we can find a radically different battery technology," says Chandrasekhar "Spike" Narayan, who manages the Science & Technology Organization at IBM Research's Almaden lab in San Jose, Calif.

To do that, IBM (IBM) is leading a consortium that will create batteries using a combination of lithium and oxygen rather than the potentially combustible lithium-ion mix that now dominates advanced consumer electronics and early electric-vehicle batteries. The new batteries could be used to store energy in electric grids as well.
...
BM's decision to pursue next-generation battery technology was sparked by Winfried W. Wilcke, program director for nanoscale science at the Almaden lab. He will lead a research team that could number 40 members, including IBM researchers and scientists from the national labs and universities. It's part of the company's two-year-old Big Green Innovations program.

Berkeley climate action plan

Earlier this month Berkeley approved its climate action plan.

The Berkeley City Council has voted unanimously to adopt a climate action plan aimed at reducing the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2020.

City officials said the plan, approved Tuesday night, details strategies for enhancing sustainable transportation options, saving energy in buildings and creating green jobs.

Mayor Tom Bates said in a statement, "Berkeley is tackling the urgent crisis of climate change by acting locally. The City Council, community and staff have designed a bold climate action plan that is holistic in its approach to land use, transportation, energy efficiency, waste reduction, and community engagement."

The plan aims to bring Berkeley into compliance with Measure G, a 2006 initiative approved by 81 percent of the city's voters. It established an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction target of 80 percent by 2050.

City staff members estimate the plan will cost about $3 million in fiscal 2009 and $6.6 million in fiscal 2010.

Not evident in this brief report was the significant controversy around the plan spurred but media coverage just prior to the plan's original vote date stating the plan mandated retrofits costing Berkeley households upwards of $33,800 each.

But the picture was in fact more complex.

After almost three years of research, public input and planning, Burroughs unveiled the newest version of the 145-page plan at the City Council meeting on April 21. It was expected that in its mature form, the CAP would pass easily and move on to the environmental review phase. Instead, it met an unexpected backlash.
...
Jones writes in her article that she simply took proposed efficiency strategies within the CAP document (such as replacing single-pane windows with double-panes), called up her local Home Depot, and tallied the grand total of every single efficiency measure mentioned.

Her egregiously inflated $33,800 figure over-estimates the number of retrofits needed per household and accounts for no incentive financing or subsidies.

Most critically, it ignores the fact that every house will be retrofitted on a completely customized basis, favoring cost-effectiveness above all. No building would be subject to every efficiency measure listed – in fact, no building would be subject to mandatory efficiency measures of any sort (at least for now).

Therein lies the biggest fallacy of all – none of the efficiency standards proposed in the CAP are mandates.

The document simply lists strategies that city officials and residents can consider pursuing. The CAP’s major recommendation (and goal) is that a collaborative community process be used to help reduce energy efficiency costs for residents, utilizing the guidelines and research provided by the CAP team.

There has simply been insufficient communication and education on the economic benefits of moving to the clean energy economy.

PG&E opposes solar bills

Though likely the country's leading utility on renewables and efficiency, PG&E is not always constructive as shown by their opposition to a pair of promising bills in the state legislature.

For consumers who might be considering a solar system, the bills enhance one of the most attractive financial benefits of making such a move: the opportunity to sell excess power back to their electric utility.

Assembly Bill 560 would increase the cap on "net metering," which gives solar customers credit on their electric bill for surplus power they transfer to the utility. Currently, a utility is not obligated to sign net-metering contracts once solar power equals 2.5 percent of its peak electricity demand, a level PG&E is approaching. AB 560 would quadruple that cap, to 10 percent.

The second bill, AB 920, would change the way customers with solar installations are paid for surplus power. Utilities now give them full retail rate credit on their monthly bill that can be used to offset the customer's energy consumption at other times, like nighttime. But at the end of the year, leftover credits are zeroed out. AB 920 would require utilities to pay for credits or any electricity left over at the end of the year, although at a lower rate, or allow them to be rolled over to the next year.

Dan Kammen, professor in the Energy and Resources Group at University of California-Berkeley, said the bills will help open up competitive markets that favor low-carbon and clean energy, and help the state meet the goals of its landmark climate-change legislation.

But PG&E and other opponents contend the bills would impose a financial burden on non-solar customers, who pay for the state rebates for solar installations. And because solar customers buy less electricity from the utility, PG&E said they do not contribute as much to transmission and generation costs, increasing the burden of non-solar customers. So far, about 30,000 of the utility's 6 million customers have solar systems.

PG&E's counter-argument is a bit problematic as PG&E gets paid regardless of consumption level and the rebate incentives are not indefinite. It is much more likely that PG&E wants to not encourage decentralized power generation too much as it could ultimately threaten its business.

Updated: Tesla revvs up: battery & drive train to Bay Area

Tesla secures $465 million in federal loans and plans to open a manufacturing plant for batteries and drive trains in the Bay Area.

"It was either live or die," said Jim Hossack, an analyst with the AutoPacific consultancy in Tustin who called Tuesday's announcement "a turning point for the industry, just as big or bigger than Tesla's deal with Daimler. That gave them credibility and technical resources, and this government support is vital to them as well."

In fact, Tesla's strategic partnership with Daimler was a key factor in the Energy Department's decision to lend it money. In a statement, Energy Secretary Steven Chu applauded Tesla's focus on accelerating "production of fuel-efficient vehicles in America. These investments will come back to our country many times over, by creating new jobs, reducing our dependence on oil, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions."

Having the batteries in the Bay Area is the coup. San Jose may have lost the manufacturing plant for the Model S but the batteries are the most critical innovation by Tesla. Not only are they likely to power Daimler's but it seems very possible that they will proliferate beyond. It may well end up that Tesla will ultimately become known more for their batteries than their cars.

Update: and as a sign of the times, Tesla's market capitalization puts it at half GM's value. Not bad for a company that's only sold about 1,000 cars.

Twin realities: Waxman-Markey & Bay Area voices

David Roberts at Grist surfaces hope amidst concern that national legislation will be inadequate.

Energy Secretary (and former director of Livermore Labs) Steven Chu speaks to our prospects:

“The fact is, we’re not going to level out at 450 ppm,” [Chu] says. “We’re going to go over 450 ppm. So what will we do? I’m not in favor of deploying geoengineering. But thinking about it is OK.”

For a moment, the room goes quiet. In effect, the United States secretary of energy has just told an elite group of scientists and politicians that, no matter what happens with climate legislation this summer in Congress, no matter what China does or does not do, no matter what targets are set at climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year, our future as a species is likely a grim one. Chu has uttered the politically unthinkable: that his own administration’s efforts to halt global warming might not be enough to avert a catastrophe.

Meanwhile just down the road:

“Think of the smartest guy you’ve ever met and then imagine 50,000 more just like him innovating all at once,” Mike Danaher, a partner and cleantech specialist at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told me. “Just as they did with telecom in the ‘90s, they’re attacking every component of every kind of alternative energy to improve it.”

Sierra Club & Chevron (more)

Now here is the full discussion between Carl Pope (ED of the Sierra Club) and Dave O'Reilly (CEO of Chevron) held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

It's an informative discussion with some surprises:



Sadly, O'Reilly sets abysmally low targets for US carbon reductions (20-25% by 2050) and no goals for Chevron, but he does agree to lobby with Pope against coal giveaways in the currently proposed Waxman-Markey federal legislation.

Transcript, bios, and other information here.

Climate Change Impacts

Finally a science report from the White House that we can trust.... followed by a background paper on our area (well, the whole southwest U.S.) by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Maybe, as a nation, we will begin to make environmental decisions based on facts.

The White House report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States on the new www.GlobalChange.gov website is a consensus of 13 government agencies on what we can expect to happen and should be prepared for.

The papers by the UCS focus on different areas of the country with specific challenges that will be faced. These are regional fact sheets based on the report. You can download from here.

Many government agencies and jurisdictions shy away from understanding the coming impacts from climate change and the planning and actions needed to address these. The White House report and leadership and the UCS regional summaries will help our counties and cities to come to some collective understanding of the impacts and the actions that are needed to create resilliency.

Burlingame approves climate plan

Just in. A solid step forward by Burlingame.

For Immediate Release
Contact Kathleen Gallagher, 650-483-9097,
kathleen-gallagher@sbcglobal.net


Burlingame City Council Approves Climate Action Plan

BURLINGAME, Calif. – June 16, 2009 – The Burlingame City Council unanimously approved the city’s first Climate Action Plan on June 15 to guide the city and community in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. State legislation (Assembly Bill 32) requires a 15 percent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and an 80 percent reduction below 2005 levels by the year 2050.

Developed by the city's Green Ribbon Task Force, the Climate Action Plan states priorities and policies for the city and makes recommendations to reduce emissions and promote sustainable practices. Among actions recommended for immediate implementation are adoption of a water-efficient landscape ordinance, consideration of a solar and energy-efficiency financing program, and hiring a part-time sustainability coordinator.

In 2007 the City Council endorsed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which pledges taking action to reduce emissions; joined ICLEI (now called Local Governments for Sustainability) to share best sustainable practices with other cities; and formed the city’s Green Ribbon Task Force.

The City Council directed the Green Ribbon Task Force to draft a Climate Action Plan in January 2009. The Task Force is comprised of local residents, business owners and education representatives, as well as members of the Burlingame City Council and the Burlingame Planning Commission. The council also approved the completion of a community greenhouse gas inventory to serve as a baseline for measuring future greenhouse gas emissions.

That inventory showed that Burlingame had base year emissions of 336,944 metric tons (calculated for 2005, which serves as the base year) and, therefore, needs to reduce emissions by 15.0 percent (50,542 metric tons) by 2020. However, if Burlingame consumption trends continue to grow at the current rate, the city will have to reduce emissions by 29.9 percent (122,387 metric tons) by 2020 – or roughly 12,000 metric tons per year.

The plan proposes 15 recommendations for implementation prior to 2012 (Phase 1) and another 14 recommendations for the period of 2012 to 2020 (Phase 2) which would allow Burlingame to meet the higher target. Phase 1 recommendations are:

• Adopt water-efficient landscape ordinance, as required by AB 1881

• Adopt a voluntary residential energy conservation policy to provide energy- and water-efficiency home audits for residents at a reduced cost

• Consider a solar and energy-efficiency financing program for residents and commercial users

• Adopt a green building ordinance for residential new construction and remodels

• Adopt a commercial green building ordinance (after a voluntary period of 12 to 18 months) to require large commercial properties to meet a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard

• Develop a commercial energy efficiency policy.

• Establish a policy that requires strategies for new development of large commercial properties that encourage shuttle use, carpools, bicycles and public transit.

• Offer prioritized parking for hybrid, rideshare and alternative-fuel cars.

• Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections in street design and modifications.

• Research methods to increase ridership and expand shuttle service and partner with local groups to increase public transportation alternatives.

• Upgrade residential and commercial recycling service to “single stream” recycling. For residential, begin weekly collection and include organics/food collection.

• Adopt a commercial recycling ordinance that requires businesses to divert recyclables, organics, cardboard and paper.

• Encourage development of a community group to expand promotion and education about climate action programs.

• Dedicate a part-time sustainability coordinator to oversee programs and seek grant funding

• Develop a “City Green Team” to implement sustainable practices in city departments.

Phase 2 recommendations for implementation from 2012 to 2020 are:

• Identify and implement methods to expand solar and renewable energy generation for residential and commercial users. Streamline the permit process.

• Adopt a voluntary commercial energy conservation policy and include a checklist to encourage commercial properties sold to comply with minimum energy efficiency and water conservation.

• Adopt a mandatory commercial energy conservation ordinance (after 12 to 18 months of voluntary education)

• Adopt a mandatory residential energy conservation ordinance (after 12 to 18 months of voluntary education and promotion)

• Research methods to expand and enhance shuttle ridership and public transportation services

• Encourage development that is mixed use, infill and higher density

• Evaluate the current construction and demolition ordinance and consider increasing the current required diversion rate

• Require recycling of cardboard, paper, contains and food/organics at major public events in Burlingame

• Adopt a policy to achieve a city-wide diversion rate of 75 percent by 2015

• Adopt a civic green building policy that requires a LEED green building standard for new municipal construction and major remodels

• Consider establishing a Sustainable Commission

• Complete a feasibility study to install solar or other renewable energy at select city facilities

• Adopt a sustainable purchasing policy with two mandatory requirements: City fleet purchases must require hybrid or alternative-fuel vehicles (with some exceptions) and require a minimum 30 percent recycled content in paper product purchases

• Dedicate a sustainability coordinator to oversee programs and seek grant funding

The complete Burlingame Climate Action Plan can be downloaded here:
https://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4645

Individuals can sign up for the “Go Green” free city e-newsletter, as well as other city notifications, here: http://www.burlingame.org/signup

Chevron and Sierra Club to lobby together?

A brief glimpse at the debate between Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope and Chevron Corporation CEO Dave O'Reilly. O'Reilly committed to lobbying with the Club against coal giveaways in the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill (The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009):


More on the exchange.

Caltrain & shameless promo: Car-free challenge

One of the great things about living in the San Mateo downtown is being able to take Caltrain to work or other activities. It is really a spectacular service - not only is it very relaxing and productive time compared to commuting, it makes a huge difference reducing climate impacts. Hopefully Caltrain will ride out the current budget troubles.

In May, Caltrain projected a $10.1 million deficit for fiscal year 2009-10. Since then, the transit agency was able to identify about $7 million in extra funds or savings — leaving the projected deficit for next year at about $2.7 million.

Here's the shameless promo. Building on her daily commute use of Caltrain, my wife Stephanie is expanding her use of local transit by doing the fun "Car-free" challenge this month. It's a fun way to raise funds for a bunch of great groups promoting good land-use for vibrant communities and transit options. Check out her fun blog & sponsor her!

VTA pilot solar project starts

While not a huge jump, the aggregate impact of small projects like this do count - not only putting in place energy from sources that never run out, but lowering costs of the technology and broading the base of experience for future projects. And hopefully VTA will expand from here.

As one of Santa Clara County's biggest users of electricity, the Valley Transportation Authority has been searching for ways to reduce its energy consumption.

So when Mountain View-based Skyline Solar asked the agency if it could build a 27-kilowatt demonstration at one of its bus yards, VTA jumped at the chance.

After all, the agency spends $5.3 million a year for electricity, most of which is for the light-rail system.

The 24 solar racks at VTA's Cerone bus yard in North San Jose, unveiled last week, will operate for 18 months and reduce power use at the station by 2 percent. While that doesn't seem like a lot, it's equal to the energy used by a small office building, said Mike Hursh, VTA's deputy director for maintenance.