Tag Archives: Policy

Government & Business, Power

The Mystery Cities in Prop 10

Every ballot measure has its fine print and every piece of legislation its earmarks and “ornaments.” Prop 10, officially the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act is typical of this time-honored tradition, except in one respect. Usually these quirks can be explained by the people promoting them.

On page 16 of the measure, Prop 10 specifically allocates multi-million-dollar grants to each of eight cities in California. Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Irvine, San Francisco, Oakland, Fresno and Sacramento (listed in that order) would each get $25 million:

“…for the purpose of capital projects and operating expenses promoting and demonstrating the actual use of alternative and renewable energy in park, recreation and cultural venues, including the education of students, residents and the visiting public about these technologies and practices.”

Seems straightforward enough–except nobody seems to know how these eight cities were chosen. It’s not merely a list of the state’s eight largest cities. It’s close, except that San Jose (#3) is conspicuously missing but Irvine (#17) makes the cut.

John Dunlap, former head of the state Air Resources Board and a paid consultant to the Prop 8 campaign, appeared to be stumped when I asked him for the rationale. His best  guess was that they might be locations with significant transportation infrastructure, such as major port facilities. Again, the mystery of Irvine…and Fresno isn’t quite the Rotterdam of the West Coast.

I called the official office of “Yes on 10” and a media representative told me that she thought the cities were chosen for “geographic distribution” but admitted that she hadn’t been asked before. She promised to get back to me with a definitive answer. That was last week. Election Day is tomorrow. If Prop 10 goes down to defeat, it won’t matter. If it passes, it’ll be even more important to have an answer.

Government & Business

The Other Greenhouse Gases

1 Comment

Carbon dioxide is the 900-pound gorilla of greenhouse gases. There’s little doubt of that, whether you’re tracking news coverage or policy measures.

But lately, some of the other beasts are getting more scrutiny. Reuters published a story last week that focused on nitrogen triflouride, a by-product of semiconductor manufacturing and a key ingredient in flat-screen TVs.

Researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego have been tracking the gas, which goes by the shorthand NF3, and concluded that the atmospheric load of the stuff is growing at 11% a year. What makes that a little scary is that NF3 is said to be 17,000 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though over all it’s still a much smaller factor in global warming.

At the same time, Kirk Smith of UC Berkeley is taking his show on the road, with a lecture he calls “CO2 on Steroids.” It’s about the role that methane plays in the warming equation and what he believes are the opportunities to make relatively fast headway against global warming by attacking methane emissions. Smith will present his findings at the state air board’s Chair’s seminar series in Sacramento. You can watch a webcast of his lecture on November 10.

I interviewed Smith for an upcoming Climate Watch radio feature on the methane issue in California. Listen for it on The California Report in mid-November.

Government & Business, Power

400,000 Jobs or Bust. Or Both.

There’s an interesting juxtaposition nowadays between the grim economic/public funding forecasts and the eye-popping estimates of job growth in the “green-collar” economy…at least in the ever-optimistic Golden State.

Given the current meltdown in the capital markets, there is understandable fear that investment in renewable energy and carbon-reducing technology will be nipped in the bud. Recent articles in the New York Times and Times of London reflect the new angst.

But against this backdrop of doom, predictions are popping out all over about the coming economic boom, if we can somehow stay the course toward a low-carbon economy. This week number-crunchers at UC Berkeley issued the bold declaration that through energy efficiency alone, California can add 403,000 new jobs. David Roland-Holst and his colleagues assume a scant 1% annual improvement in overall energy efficiency, in order to get there. And by the way, they say, you can pencil an extra $76 billion in gross state product into the bargain. We’ll be spending so much less to light, heat, cool, and move us around, that it will free up billions of dollars and an outbreak of general prosperity will ensue. Sound like Pollyanna gone wild? The authors say we’ve done it before.

A recent economic analysis by the California Air Resources Board predicted that full implementation of the sweeping Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (CA AB-32) would add 100,000 jobs by 2020. The astute reader might wonder how, since energy efficiency is just one facet of AB-32, can the Berkeley number be so much higher. The answer, according to Roland-Holst, is that the Air Board estimate is “innovation-neutral.” In other words, it assumes that nothing new is invented on the efficiency front.

Hear more details as KQED’s Peter Jon Shuler speaks with  Roland-Holst about his methodology.

Government & Business

Proposed Plan for Reducing Emissions in CA

California is one step closer to implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32, the law that requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Today, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released its proposed scoping plan for how to achieve this goal.  CARB president Mary Nichols said more than 40,000 comments were submitted in response to the draft plan released in June, which we wrote about last month.  Today’s plan will go before the Board for approval in December.

One of the biggest changes to the scoping plan is that the target for reducing Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2020 was more than doubled from two to five million metric tons. CARB anticipates meeting this goal with a combination of improvements to alternative transportation infrastructure (such as public transit and biking lanes), building sustainable developments, and reducing vehicle trips through incentives and education strategies.

Another change is the addition of a goal for local governments, which was not articulated in the previous version of the plan.  CARB is recommending local governments reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below today’s levels by 2020.

A big component of the scoping plan is a cap and trade program that covers 85 percent of the state’s emissions.  The plan is being developed in conjuction with the Western Climate Initiative, which includes seven states and four Canadians provinces that have agreed to work together to cap emissions and create a regional carbon market.  In September, we wrote about the carbon trading market set up by ten eastern states, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). 

Questions still remain about how California’s carbon credits will be divided up and whether they will be handed out, auctioned off, or, more likely, a combination of the two.  WCI has left this decision up the individual states with a recommendation of a minimum auction for 10 percent at the outset of the program increasing to at least 25 percent by 2020, and perhaps higher in the future. Nichols said today that California is considering auctioning 20 percent.  Of course, for many environmentalists, the closer to a 100 percent auction, the better. 

For more information and analysis on the plan, listen to our own Craig Miller, Senior Editor of Climate Watch, on KQED Radio talking with host Sarah Varney. Listen to Miller’s report on AB 32 that aired on the October 16 edition of the The California Report.

Government & Business, Power

Three Bucks a Ton

You load 16 tons and whaddayou get? The late Tennessee Ernie Ford’s answer to that was “Another day older and deeper in debt.” But in the emerging carbon market, we now have a real answer: about $48.

At least that’s how much you’d use up in carbon credits if you participated in the nation’s first “cap-and-trade” auction for carbon emissions, which set the price for a ton of carbon in that particular market at $3.07. That auction last week was for RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, casually known as “Reggie.” It’s the carbon trading market set up by a group of ten northeastern states and it may give us a preview for when trading begins by the Western Climate Initiative, a consortium of eleven western states and Canadian provinces, including California. As I reported last week, the WCI just made public its general gameplan for carbon trading to begin in 2012. The first RGGI auction raised $40 million, which the states can now spend on developing low-carbon sources of energy (let’s hope “Reggie” fares better in the long run than “Fannie” and “Freddie.”)

Actually, 16 tons isn’t even enough to get you noticed in these carbon markets. Burning a gallon of gas in your car typically releases less than 20 pounds of CO2. Only facilities that pump out 25,000 tons or more per year will have to comply with WCI, which has yet to decide what portion of its credits to give away or auction off.

On Friday, we expect staffers at the California Air Resources Board to release the last version of their “scoping plan,” before it goes to the board for approval. It’s the master plan for implementing the state’s comprehensive law to combat the effects of climate change. Part of it hinges on California’s participation in the WCI, so the successful first auction of credits by RGGI bodes well.

Government & Business

Another Climate “Summit”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said today that he plans to host a major climate conference in November. Few details were offered for the planned Governors’ Global Climate Summit–not even a date–but there is a goal and that’s to “form a broad international alliance,” to lay a “framework” for the next round of UN-sponsored talks,  scheduled for December in Poznan, Poland. Schwarzenegger plans to invite every U.S. governor as well as provincial governors from around the world, including China.

At the conferences in Poznan and later, Copenhagen, negotiators will try to build momentum toward a meaningful international climate accord, before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

In his speech before members of the Commonwealth Club of California, at San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel, the Governor took U.S. leaders to task for being “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to taking action to mitigate global warming. “We are not waiting for the federal government,” said Schwarzenegger, “We (will) continue on and push forward.”

He also had some choice words for U.S. automakers, who he said “need to get off their butts” and start building greener cars. He applauded Tesla Motors for its decision to build electric cars in San Jose, a project touted to bring 1,000 new jobs to Silicon Valley.

The Governor sidestepped a question about Proposition 10, the natural gas initiative supported by Texas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens, saying he’ll take a position on that and other statewide ballot measures in the weeks to come.

Schwarzenegger said he would “review very carefully” SB 375, the anti-sprawl bill awaiting his signature. He said he “loves the idea” but that the bill would have effects almost as sweeping as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

The Governor’s entire speech will be broadcast on KQED Radio tonight at 8 p.m., with re-broadcasts scheduled for Saturday and Sunday.

Government & Business, Power

Solar Realities for the Rest of Us

These are Gold Rush days for solar advocates in the US.  Molly Sterkel, who supervises the California Solar Initiative for the Public Utilities Commission, jokes that she lives in fear that private industry is looking to poach her staff:

There’s a lot of people going to solar companies to work because it’s a really exciting industry. It’s growing so much in California, so it’s attracting some of the best and brightest. I’ve told all of my staff that they have to sign 10-year contracts to work for me but so far most of them have stayed because it’s a really exciting time to be in government, to be able to run the largest solar program in the country.

In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard Program “…with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent by 2017.” Then the Energy Commission bumped the deadline up to 2010, and the 2004 Energy Report Update further recommended increasing the target to 33 percent by 2020.

Whatever the deadline, numerous incentives and rebate programs funded by the state and utility ratepayers are fueling an explosion of solar.  Sterkel says it’s growing at a rate of 40-50% a year.

But installing solar is still not cheap. Even now, all the solar in California adds up to 350 MW (one big power plant generates about 500 MW).

In part, that’s because most of the people taking advantage of the subsidies are residential utility customers, and most of those are installing systems of 4 KWs. That’s not a bad thing, per se.  Any kilowatt that home doesn’t siphon off of the grid is a kilowatt that can be used elsewhere. But slow and steady is a little too slow and a little to steady for some. Never mind that California is way ahead of other US states.  That just makes it easier to compare us to other countries, like Germany and Spain, that have invested even more in solar.

There’s no argument it takes subsidies to make solar financial feasible.  The question for advocates and regulators alike is how much subsidy helps solar thrive without spurring a ratepayer revolt? And how long should those subsidies last?  A report from McKinsey & Co. concludes:

“…regulators must adjust incentive structures over time and phase them out when grid parity is reached.”

Grid parity is the point at which there’s no difference between the price of solar and the market price for (less environmentally preferable) “brown power.”
Sterkel says:

(That) is the point at which everybody gets solar. Just like there was a moment when everyone got a cell phone and everyone got a car. And this year, we’ve already installed more megawatts than we did in all of 2007, and we’re not even all the way through the year. The policies are all pushing towards solar. The businesses are growing. The venture capital is here. You know, all signs point to “yes” for solar here in California.

That’s even though incentive levels in California have been dropping.
Where’s it all going?  Some say we could see a repeat of the 1980s, when oil prices tanked after spiking and green energy projects went “poof.”  It took them well over a decade to begin the long, slow climb back to economic and political viability.  Oil prices appeared to be sliding after a long, hot summer in 2008–until yesterday, anyway.  But green advocates say they won’t be caught out in the cold this time around. That’s because renewable energy advocates can point public attention to something that goes well beyond consumer price protection: climate change.

Rachael Myrow hosts The California Report. She reported on rooftop solar installations for Climate Watch on September 23, 2008. Listen to her story here.

Government & Business

Gone: An Eloquent Voice on Climate Change

I was unaccountably saddened by the news today that Philip Clapp had died. I say “unaccountably” because I really didn’t know the man. I had been in the same room with him exactly one time, when he spoke to a group of Knight Fellows in College Park, MD, right after Memorial Day.

But of all the nearly two dozen speakers paraded before us over the four-day climate change seminar, Clapp stood out. He was Deputy Managing Director of the Pew Environment Group, an outgrowth of the National Environmental Trust and to say that he knew his stuff would be an enormous understatement. He held an impressive–almost singular, it seemed to me–footing on the treacherous ground of climate science and policy. Speaking without a single note, he had a way of distilling the topic down to its stark realities. It was riveting–and a little scary. But listening to him, I didn’t get the sense that Clapp was some sort of professional alarmist. I did get the sense that he could see our high-carbon future with unusual clarity–and I left the room glad that he was on the job.

Philip Clapp died in Amsterdam at the age of 54. David Roberts posted this obituary for Grist.

Government & Business, Power

Net Zero Energy Future?

According to the Air Resources Board, about a quarter of California’s (human-induced) greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings–or what planners like to call the “built environment.”

My colleague Peter Jon Shuler was at today’s meeting of the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco, when it rolled out its master plan for energy-efficient buildings throughout the state. Peter’s notes:
The California Public Utilities Commission has taken the first steps in an innovative plan to eventually get all new construction in the state down to zero net energy use.

On Tuesday, the PUC adopted what it’s calling the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan.  More than 500 individuals and organizations came together to craft the ambitious plan – designed to save energy while growing the state’s population and economy.  It’s still a little fuzzy on the details of how all this will happen.

The plan includes what it calls its four Big Bold strategies:

• All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;
• All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;
• The Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) industry will be reshaped to ensure optimal equipment performance; and
• All eligible low-income homes will be energy efficient by 2020.

Government & Business

Selling the Benefits of AB 32

Well-timed would be one way to describe the pair of rosy forecasts from the state’s Air Resources Board today. For Californians beleaguered by the slumping economy, both reports were choc-a-bloc with good news. The only drawback is that we’ll have to wait a while for the payoff.

The ARB is the “lead agency” for implementing California’s comprehensive plan passed in 2006 to combat climate change, known affectionately as AB32. The primary objective is to get a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases statewide by 2020. The two reports released today attempt to gauge the long-term economic and public health benefits from fully implementing the plan.

Over time, the reports point to creation of more than 100,000  jobs and higher per capita income on the economic front. Estimated health benefits include fewer premature deaths (mostly related to heat waves) and asthma cases.

Some of the touted benefits are relatively small incremental improvements over programs already in place. For instance, ARB anticipates that by 2020, all the provisions of AB32 combined would mean 67 fewer hospital admissions per year (statewide) for respiratory conditions. That compares to the 770 admissions spared in 2020 that would result from existing air quality measures.