A break for budgets: PSE slashes natural-gas rates
By Ángel González
Seattle Times
If you heat your home with natural gas, here's some news to warm up to: The price will go down for the first time in five years, as Puget Sound Energy cuts its rate by 13 percent starting Monday. The cut, approved Wednesday by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), comes as the region prepares for the cold and dreary nights of winter. The average natural-gas bill for a residential customer will drop by $11.27 to $82.12 a month, according to the WUTC.
The impact will be widely felt. Some 44 percent of homes in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metro area burn natural gas for heat, and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is their sole provider. Residents who heat with fuel oil won't be so lucky. Oil prices are expected to rise about 7 percent on the West Coast, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Given the volatility of energy markets, nothing guarantees natural-gas prices won't rebound when PSE revises its costs again next year.
"I only wish I could guarantee that these wholesale prices will stay low in the future," WUTC Commissioner Pat Oshie said in a statement. The recent lower wholesale prices are a result of several factors:
--Relatively mild summer temperatures meant low air-conditioning loads for utilities, which used less natural gas to generate electricity.
-- No major supply disruptions like those hurricanes Rita and Katrina caused in 2005.
-- Record imports of liquefied natural gas, and more production in the Gulf of Mexico and the Rockies. The EIA expects natural-gas production in the United States to increase 0.7 percent in 2007 and 1.3 percent next year.
PSE, Washington state's largest energy utility, is required to pass these savings on to customers.
The company, like other state-regulated utilities, adjusts its rates once a year to balance its costs with the prices it charges. Should there be a major increase in natural-gas prices — due to extreme cold this winter, or a killer hurricane late in the season — consumers won't see the effect until next year.
Electricity
For area residents who heat their homes electrically — 45.6 percent of the total — rates will go up or down depending on whether they live in Seattle or its suburbs. Seattle City Light cut its 2007 and 2008 rates for residential customers by about 8 percent Jan. 1, said spokesman Peter Clarke. The drop is due to its reliance on abundant hydropower and the improvement of the company's finances, which were badly hurt after an energy crisis at the start of the decade.
PSE, which supplies electricity outside the city of Seattle to people in 11 Washington counties, raised its rates 3.7 percent Sept. 1, bringing the average monthly bill up to $91.31. The boost was approved to help the utility recover money spent on higher power-supply costs, such as the purchase of a gas-Klickitat County gas-turbine plant.
Customers of PSE and other private electricity providers have also had another change in their bill: In June, the companies stopped applying a federal power-system credit to bills. That change increased the average bill by $10.28 a month for Puget Sound Energy customers, according to the WUTC. Private utilities seek to restore the payment of the benefit, which was suspended in May by a federal court. Meanwhile, to offset the credit's end, "we're encouraging our customers to conserve and take what steps they can to use energy wisely," said Puget Sound Energy spokeswoman Martha Monfried.
Snohomish County Public Utility District has not finished its budget process but said recently it did not expect to change electricity rates.
Oil
Homes heated by fuel oil represent less than 5 percent of the regional total and should see costs rise, according to a report by the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association. The increase is driven by skyrocketing crude-oil prices reflecting global supply concerns. Residential customers are expected to pay a national average of $1,834 for heating oil-derived warmth during the 2007-08 winter, up 28 percent from the previous year, the report says.
But the price increase will be less acute west of the Rockies, where demand is the lowest. The EIA estimates that a gallon of heating oil on the West Coast in the fourth quarter of 2007 will cost around $2.75, up about 7 percent from the same period last year. Demand here is lower due to less-severe winter weather than in the Northeast, where the bulk of heating-oil users reside.
"Here in the Northwest, the winters have been tending towards mild," said Calvin Caley, owner of Pacific Heating Oil in Seattle. The area is also less vulnerable to sharp cold snaps. "A winter that's colder is not much different anymore from a winter that is milder," he said. Typical residential customers consume between 400 and 800 gallons between September and June, Caley said. The current price runs between $3.05 to $3.15 a gallon, he said.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003906654&zsection_id=2002119995&slug=natgas27&date=20070927
Friday, September 28, 2007
It could be `lights out' for one hour to save energy
Alison Hewitt
San Bernadino Sun
A budding "lights out" movement could darken Los Angeles County for one hour in October.
The effort, which began in Australia and has gained traction in San Francisco, got a local boost from county Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke when she introduced a motion this week supporting "Lights Out Los Angeles." The idea is to turn off as many lights as is safely possible in and around government buildings, businesses, homes and public landmarks in order to reduce pollution and raise awareness of the need to save energy, Burke said.
"In one hour, you could save as much as 15 percent of the energy used on an average Saturday," Burke said. Her motion proposed synchronizing Lights Out Los Angeles with Lights Out San Francisco, where City Hall, the Golden Gate Bridge and other landmarks have already agreed to go dark from 8 to 9 p.m. on Oct. 20.
If Burke's motion is approved, county buildings would join in switching off their lights. In the city of Los Angeles, Councilwoman Wendy Greuel introduced a similar motion that would darken city structures. Landmarks such as the pillars of light at Los Angeles International Airport could also go dark, according to Burke's office. The Hollywood sign is also on the list of candidates - but the sign isn't lit up, said Betsy Isroelit of the Hollywood Sign Trust.
The movement started when San Francisco resident Nate Tyler found out about Sydney, Australia's Earth Hour. In Sydney, the one-hour event reduced pollution as much as taking 48,000 cars off the road for an hour, Burke said.
San Francisco and Los Angeles will be Tyler's trial runs for a national event on March 29 - the same day as Earth Hour. Tyler hopes it will become an annual effort. "What we're encouraging or inviting people to do is turn off all nonessential lighting to save energy, and to install one compact fluorescent lightbulb to save energy," he said. "It's a simple thing that people can do to take action in the fight against climate change."
Streetlights and stoplights and other lights needed for safety should of course stay on, Tyler said. Beyond that, it's up to people to decide for themselves whether they will simply remember to turn off the lights when they leave a room, he said.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_7021458
Alison Hewitt
San Bernadino Sun
A budding "lights out" movement could darken Los Angeles County for one hour in October.
The effort, which began in Australia and has gained traction in San Francisco, got a local boost from county Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke when she introduced a motion this week supporting "Lights Out Los Angeles." The idea is to turn off as many lights as is safely possible in and around government buildings, businesses, homes and public landmarks in order to reduce pollution and raise awareness of the need to save energy, Burke said.
"In one hour, you could save as much as 15 percent of the energy used on an average Saturday," Burke said. Her motion proposed synchronizing Lights Out Los Angeles with Lights Out San Francisco, where City Hall, the Golden Gate Bridge and other landmarks have already agreed to go dark from 8 to 9 p.m. on Oct. 20.
If Burke's motion is approved, county buildings would join in switching off their lights. In the city of Los Angeles, Councilwoman Wendy Greuel introduced a similar motion that would darken city structures. Landmarks such as the pillars of light at Los Angeles International Airport could also go dark, according to Burke's office. The Hollywood sign is also on the list of candidates - but the sign isn't lit up, said Betsy Isroelit of the Hollywood Sign Trust.
The movement started when San Francisco resident Nate Tyler found out about Sydney, Australia's Earth Hour. In Sydney, the one-hour event reduced pollution as much as taking 48,000 cars off the road for an hour, Burke said.
San Francisco and Los Angeles will be Tyler's trial runs for a national event on March 29 - the same day as Earth Hour. Tyler hopes it will become an annual effort. "What we're encouraging or inviting people to do is turn off all nonessential lighting to save energy, and to install one compact fluorescent lightbulb to save energy," he said. "It's a simple thing that people can do to take action in the fight against climate change."
Streetlights and stoplights and other lights needed for safety should of course stay on, Tyler said. Beyond that, it's up to people to decide for themselves whether they will simply remember to turn off the lights when they leave a room, he said.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_7021458
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Green buildings get green light
By Wu Jiayin
2007-9-27
Shanghai Daily
ALTHOUGH still at the initial stage, "green building" has a promising future in China.Green building refers to practices that promote occupant health and comfort while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Although construction costs are usually higher for green buildings than for traditional energy-gobblers, the buildings save money in the long run because of reduced fuel costs.
A report by People's Daily at the end of 2004 pointed out that in China, of all the buildings in use (about 40 billion square meters) at that time, 99 percent were highly energy consuming. In 2002, China's buildings accounted for over a quarter of the country's energy consumption, according to Yang Fujia, chancellor of the University of Nottingham, England, and an academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences. And that figure is expected to increase to 40 percent by 2020 with the rapid development of the construction sector.
Recognizing this problem, the Chinese government first listed the goal of promoting green buildings and energy-saving buildings in the Outline of National Plan for Medium to Long-term Scientific and Technological Development (2006-2020) in 2005. Chen Yiming, director of the science and technology department promotion center of the Ministry of Construction, explained China's "green" policies at a conference on green building organized by McGraw-Hill Construction in Shanghai on September 13.
In response to the central government's regulation, many enterprises, especially real estate enterprises, are becoming active in the green building movement. Shanghai East Harbor Development Co Ltd, for example, is developing a green office building on the North Bund. It is based on the high standards of the US Green Building Council's LEED (leadership in energy and environmental design) certification. According to Kenny H.C. Ko, president of Shanghai East Harbor Development Ltd, the building uses a geothermal heat pump system to tap the constant temperature of the earth as the main source of heating in winter and cooling in summer. Further, to save energy, the company turned down a proposal to make the building's exterior of glass. It also made a wise decision on the ratio of window space to wall space.
As to the part of exterior wall that is made of glass, the company requires energy-saving double-layer hollow glass. In addition, the building is equipped with energy-saving automatic switches, water taps and a rooftop rainwater drainage system. Zhejiang Zhongcheng Industry Co Ltd is now the owner of the largest public green building project in Zhejiang Province - the Jiaxing International China HK city. The project devotes 180,000 square meters of its 1.15 million square meters to an international marketplace for energy saving and environmental friendly building products and equipment. What's more, the site of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing will be equipped with many of General Electric's energy-saving technologies such as a solar-powered lighting power and rainwater recycling system as well as a light-emitting diode system.
Although green building materials nowadays are somewhat more expensive than ordinary building materials, they help to conserve energy in the long run.
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2007/200709/20070927/article_332627.htm
By Wu Jiayin
2007-9-27
Shanghai Daily
ALTHOUGH still at the initial stage, "green building" has a promising future in China.Green building refers to practices that promote occupant health and comfort while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Although construction costs are usually higher for green buildings than for traditional energy-gobblers, the buildings save money in the long run because of reduced fuel costs.
A report by People's Daily at the end of 2004 pointed out that in China, of all the buildings in use (about 40 billion square meters) at that time, 99 percent were highly energy consuming. In 2002, China's buildings accounted for over a quarter of the country's energy consumption, according to Yang Fujia, chancellor of the University of Nottingham, England, and an academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences. And that figure is expected to increase to 40 percent by 2020 with the rapid development of the construction sector.
Recognizing this problem, the Chinese government first listed the goal of promoting green buildings and energy-saving buildings in the Outline of National Plan for Medium to Long-term Scientific and Technological Development (2006-2020) in 2005. Chen Yiming, director of the science and technology department promotion center of the Ministry of Construction, explained China's "green" policies at a conference on green building organized by McGraw-Hill Construction in Shanghai on September 13.
In response to the central government's regulation, many enterprises, especially real estate enterprises, are becoming active in the green building movement. Shanghai East Harbor Development Co Ltd, for example, is developing a green office building on the North Bund. It is based on the high standards of the US Green Building Council's LEED (leadership in energy and environmental design) certification. According to Kenny H.C. Ko, president of Shanghai East Harbor Development Ltd, the building uses a geothermal heat pump system to tap the constant temperature of the earth as the main source of heating in winter and cooling in summer. Further, to save energy, the company turned down a proposal to make the building's exterior of glass. It also made a wise decision on the ratio of window space to wall space.
As to the part of exterior wall that is made of glass, the company requires energy-saving double-layer hollow glass. In addition, the building is equipped with energy-saving automatic switches, water taps and a rooftop rainwater drainage system. Zhejiang Zhongcheng Industry Co Ltd is now the owner of the largest public green building project in Zhejiang Province - the Jiaxing International China HK city. The project devotes 180,000 square meters of its 1.15 million square meters to an international marketplace for energy saving and environmental friendly building products and equipment. What's more, the site of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing will be equipped with many of General Electric's energy-saving technologies such as a solar-powered lighting power and rainwater recycling system as well as a light-emitting diode system.
Although green building materials nowadays are somewhat more expensive than ordinary building materials, they help to conserve energy in the long run.
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2007/200709/20070927/article_332627.htm
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Yemen: Agreement signed to build $15 billion nuclear power plant
25-09-2007
A delegation of American and Canadian investors in the field of nuclear energy left Yemen on Tuesday after signing an initial agreement with the Yemeni government to fund a nuclear power plant at an estimated cost $15 billion.
The firms would carry out feasibility studies for building the plant with a total production capacity of 5,000 MW, Saba news agency has indicated. The agreement with the US and Canadian firms envisages the construction of five nuclear reactors over 10 years to produce nuclear energy.
Yemen is looking to build nuclear plant to generate electricity and to desalinate sea water in order to meet the needs of its growing urban population of electrification and water and boost the country's industrial development. It also hopes to diversify and expand its energy resources due to declining oil production.
Speaking to AFP, Yemen's Energy and Electricity Minister Mustafa Bahran said the contract was inked with the Houston-based Powered Corp. "The overall cost of the project is estimated at 15 billion dollars. It features the construction of five nuclear reactors over 10 years," Bahran said. "Powered Corporation will oversee efforts to secure the financing of the project," he said.
http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Yemen/217221
25-09-2007
A delegation of American and Canadian investors in the field of nuclear energy left Yemen on Tuesday after signing an initial agreement with the Yemeni government to fund a nuclear power plant at an estimated cost $15 billion.
The firms would carry out feasibility studies for building the plant with a total production capacity of 5,000 MW, Saba news agency has indicated. The agreement with the US and Canadian firms envisages the construction of five nuclear reactors over 10 years to produce nuclear energy.
Yemen is looking to build nuclear plant to generate electricity and to desalinate sea water in order to meet the needs of its growing urban population of electrification and water and boost the country's industrial development. It also hopes to diversify and expand its energy resources due to declining oil production.
Speaking to AFP, Yemen's Energy and Electricity Minister Mustafa Bahran said the contract was inked with the Houston-based Powered Corp. "The overall cost of the project is estimated at 15 billion dollars. It features the construction of five nuclear reactors over 10 years," Bahran said. "Powered Corporation will oversee efforts to secure the financing of the project," he said.
http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Yemen/217221
MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF MARGARITA LOPEZ AS ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR AT NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Chairman Tino Hernandez today appointed NYCHA Board Member Margarita Lopez to spearhead environmental initiatives at the Authority. In her expanded role, Commissioner Lopez will guide NYCHA in setting aggressive goals to improve sustainability and ensure that those goals are met through new operational and administrative programs.
(Media-Newswire.com) - Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City Housing Authority ( NYCHA ) Chairman Tino Hernandez today appointed NYCHA Board Member Margarita Lopez to spearhead environmental initiatives at the Authority. In her expanded role, Commissioner Lopez will guide NYCHA in setting aggressive goals to improve sustainability and ensure that those goals are met through new operational and administrative programs. The new initiatives will further advance PlaNYC, the City's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make New York City the world's first great sustainable city of the 21st century.
"With 2,653 residential buildings across the City, the Housing Authority can play a vital role in achieving our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Mayor Bloomberg. "With her dedication and intelligence, I can think of no better person than Margarita to lead NYCHA in this important effort."
Commissioner Lopez will lead a NCYHA team that will develop and implement a series of environmental programs aimed at making NYCHA a leader in green initiatives for public housing agencies across the country. Its strategies to enhance sustainability include the purchase and installation of energy efficient systems, as well as programs to educate and engage residents in adopting energy efficient practices in their homes. NYCHA, with 343 developments located throughout the City, is the nation's second largest landlord behind the U.S. Army with nearly 180,000 apartments providing housing to over 408,000 New Yorkers.
"Margarita Lopez is clearly an excellent choice for the Housing Authority," said Chairman Hernandez. "Her understanding of these complex issues and championing of green initiatives at NYCHA has been evident since she joined the Board. I welcome her leadership in helping not only NYCHA, but the entire City, in achieving our environmental goals."
"I am honored that Mayor Bloomberg has chosen me to head this important initiative," said Commissioner Lopez. "NYCHA's size and location throughout the City make it an important resource in achieving the goals set by the Mayor. NYCHA is going to be an integral part of PlaNYC and the global effort to help ensure a healthy and environmentally-sound future for everyone."
http://media-newswire.com/release_1054863.html
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Chairman Tino Hernandez today appointed NYCHA Board Member Margarita Lopez to spearhead environmental initiatives at the Authority. In her expanded role, Commissioner Lopez will guide NYCHA in setting aggressive goals to improve sustainability and ensure that those goals are met through new operational and administrative programs.
(Media-Newswire.com) - Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City Housing Authority ( NYCHA ) Chairman Tino Hernandez today appointed NYCHA Board Member Margarita Lopez to spearhead environmental initiatives at the Authority. In her expanded role, Commissioner Lopez will guide NYCHA in setting aggressive goals to improve sustainability and ensure that those goals are met through new operational and administrative programs. The new initiatives will further advance PlaNYC, the City's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make New York City the world's first great sustainable city of the 21st century.
"With 2,653 residential buildings across the City, the Housing Authority can play a vital role in achieving our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Mayor Bloomberg. "With her dedication and intelligence, I can think of no better person than Margarita to lead NYCHA in this important effort."
Commissioner Lopez will lead a NCYHA team that will develop and implement a series of environmental programs aimed at making NYCHA a leader in green initiatives for public housing agencies across the country. Its strategies to enhance sustainability include the purchase and installation of energy efficient systems, as well as programs to educate and engage residents in adopting energy efficient practices in their homes. NYCHA, with 343 developments located throughout the City, is the nation's second largest landlord behind the U.S. Army with nearly 180,000 apartments providing housing to over 408,000 New Yorkers.
"Margarita Lopez is clearly an excellent choice for the Housing Authority," said Chairman Hernandez. "Her understanding of these complex issues and championing of green initiatives at NYCHA has been evident since she joined the Board. I welcome her leadership in helping not only NYCHA, but the entire City, in achieving our environmental goals."
"I am honored that Mayor Bloomberg has chosen me to head this important initiative," said Commissioner Lopez. "NYCHA's size and location throughout the City make it an important resource in achieving the goals set by the Mayor. NYCHA is going to be an integral part of PlaNYC and the global effort to help ensure a healthy and environmentally-sound future for everyone."
http://media-newswire.com/release_1054863.html
New study shows Mayor's energy policies are 'highly successful'
25-9-2007
Greater London Authority press release
The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's energy policies will help to save over 135,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year according to a new report published today.
The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone’s energy policies will help to save over 135,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year according to a new report published today. The independent study by London South Bank University for the Greater London Authority looked at reductions in energy use and carbon savings resulting from the application of London Plan energy policies to developments referred to the Mayor and concluded that “In general, the Mayor’s policies have been highly successful in reducing expected energy consumption and CO2 emissions in new developments representing around a 26% saving of CO2.”
The study shows that more than three quarters of carbon savings come from energy efficiency measures, and that the target for ten percent of further CO2 savings from on-site renewables was met on average by late 2005. The authors note that carbon savings have increased over time, and that both developers and the Greater London Authority planning team have climbed a steep learning curve and are now more aware of how to address energy issues through the planning process.
The report coincides with the publication of the Mayor’s draft Housing Strategy last week, which sets out the Mayor’s plans to deliver 30,500 homes a year and 50,000 affordable homes over the next three years. Accordingly, as the number of homes built increases, the strategy contains specific policies to continue tackling climate change with a firm Mayoral commitment that the £1 billion regional housing budget for London will only be invested in new homes that meet high standards of environmental performance.
The Mayor said:
‘This study shows that the development industry in London has made a dramatic change in its approach to energy and climate change over the last four years. It also shows the value of setting tough policy to drive innovation and the adoption of energy efficient building design, efficient energy supply and renewable energy technologies. As the evidence of accelerating climate change continues to build, I look forward to working with London's construction and development communities to meet my targets for building new low carbon homes.’
Douglas Parr, Policy Director Greenpeace said: ‘London has shown that strong local policies can make developers and builders actually change the way they work to reduce carbon emissions. They need to be made standard across the country whilst progressive authorities and the Greater London Authority can continue to drive standards towards zero-carbon building.’
To download a copy of the report visit http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/planning.jsp
25-9-2007
Greater London Authority press release
The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's energy policies will help to save over 135,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year according to a new report published today.
The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone’s energy policies will help to save over 135,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year according to a new report published today. The independent study by London South Bank University for the Greater London Authority looked at reductions in energy use and carbon savings resulting from the application of London Plan energy policies to developments referred to the Mayor and concluded that “In general, the Mayor’s policies have been highly successful in reducing expected energy consumption and CO2 emissions in new developments representing around a 26% saving of CO2.”
The study shows that more than three quarters of carbon savings come from energy efficiency measures, and that the target for ten percent of further CO2 savings from on-site renewables was met on average by late 2005. The authors note that carbon savings have increased over time, and that both developers and the Greater London Authority planning team have climbed a steep learning curve and are now more aware of how to address energy issues through the planning process.
The report coincides with the publication of the Mayor’s draft Housing Strategy last week, which sets out the Mayor’s plans to deliver 30,500 homes a year and 50,000 affordable homes over the next three years. Accordingly, as the number of homes built increases, the strategy contains specific policies to continue tackling climate change with a firm Mayoral commitment that the £1 billion regional housing budget for London will only be invested in new homes that meet high standards of environmental performance.
The Mayor said:
‘This study shows that the development industry in London has made a dramatic change in its approach to energy and climate change over the last four years. It also shows the value of setting tough policy to drive innovation and the adoption of energy efficient building design, efficient energy supply and renewable energy technologies. As the evidence of accelerating climate change continues to build, I look forward to working with London's construction and development communities to meet my targets for building new low carbon homes.’
Douglas Parr, Policy Director Greenpeace said: ‘London has shown that strong local policies can make developers and builders actually change the way they work to reduce carbon emissions. They need to be made standard across the country whilst progressive authorities and the Greater London Authority can continue to drive standards towards zero-carbon building.’
To download a copy of the report visit http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/planning.jsp
New York behind on renewable energy
By VALERIE BAUMAN
Business Week
ALBANY, N.Y.
The complex web of New York's local governments and regulations, along with a lack of resources and strong competition from other states, has limited the state's ability to develop renewable energy technologies, according to findings released Tuesday. The state's Renewable Energy Task Force identified a series of problems New York faces in achieving its goal of generating 25 percent renewable energy by 2013.
Lt. Gov. David Paterson is chairman of the task force. Gov. Eliot Spitzer has called for reducing the state's electricity consumption 15 percent below forecast levels by 2015.
One major obstacle to alternative energy use in New York comes from the complex and numerous local governments that have varying laws and restrictions that apply to installing new energy systems.
"Renewable energy installers and potential owners face a patchwork of widely differing local government requirements and home owner association restrictions, creating hurdles to the efficient and widespread installation of renewable energy systems," the task force said.
New York also faces a competitive disadvantage, because other states provide substantially more funding for incentives to attract clean industries. "New York has lacked the vision to ask ourselves the hard questions of why renewable industries are locating in surrounding states, and how do we utilize and maximize New York's resources, and craft polices that are environmentally balanced and economically sustainable for our state," the task force said in its executive summary. A full report is expected later this year.
"There are a number of other places that do see this (energy efficiency) as an opportunity for their area to stand out and try to put themselves first in line to attract this next generation of green technologies," said Carol Werner, executive director of the District of Columbia-based Environmental and Energy Study Institute. California, and Sacramento in particular, have been leaders in providing incentives, requests for proposals, direct funding and competitive grants to attract green companies, Werner said.
Ann Arbor, Mich.; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Texas; Seattle and Chicago have also led the way in developing major projects to develop more efficient energy technology and attract new businesses, she said.
Paterson identified California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania as New York's competition for businesses attracted to alternative energy sources. He said New York hasn't prioritized renewable energy in the budget.
"California has a plan to invest billions into renewable energy," Paterson said. "In this respect they're ahead of us and corporate America has followed the less costly plan." The task force said the state needs more funding to achieve its goals.
The $41.3 million funding the Renewable Portfolio Standard program is not sufficient to change New York's energy use, the task force said. The RPS program was created to improve energy security, help diversify the state's electricity options and increase economic development opportunities in the renewables industry.
The task force is to identify and recommend potential markets for investment invest that would increase the state's use of renewable energy and alternative fuels.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8RSPAHO0.htm
By VALERIE BAUMAN
Business Week
ALBANY, N.Y.
The complex web of New York's local governments and regulations, along with a lack of resources and strong competition from other states, has limited the state's ability to develop renewable energy technologies, according to findings released Tuesday. The state's Renewable Energy Task Force identified a series of problems New York faces in achieving its goal of generating 25 percent renewable energy by 2013.
Lt. Gov. David Paterson is chairman of the task force. Gov. Eliot Spitzer has called for reducing the state's electricity consumption 15 percent below forecast levels by 2015.
One major obstacle to alternative energy use in New York comes from the complex and numerous local governments that have varying laws and restrictions that apply to installing new energy systems.
"Renewable energy installers and potential owners face a patchwork of widely differing local government requirements and home owner association restrictions, creating hurdles to the efficient and widespread installation of renewable energy systems," the task force said.
New York also faces a competitive disadvantage, because other states provide substantially more funding for incentives to attract clean industries. "New York has lacked the vision to ask ourselves the hard questions of why renewable industries are locating in surrounding states, and how do we utilize and maximize New York's resources, and craft polices that are environmentally balanced and economically sustainable for our state," the task force said in its executive summary. A full report is expected later this year.
"There are a number of other places that do see this (energy efficiency) as an opportunity for their area to stand out and try to put themselves first in line to attract this next generation of green technologies," said Carol Werner, executive director of the District of Columbia-based Environmental and Energy Study Institute. California, and Sacramento in particular, have been leaders in providing incentives, requests for proposals, direct funding and competitive grants to attract green companies, Werner said.
Ann Arbor, Mich.; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Texas; Seattle and Chicago have also led the way in developing major projects to develop more efficient energy technology and attract new businesses, she said.
Paterson identified California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania as New York's competition for businesses attracted to alternative energy sources. He said New York hasn't prioritized renewable energy in the budget.
"California has a plan to invest billions into renewable energy," Paterson said. "In this respect they're ahead of us and corporate America has followed the less costly plan." The task force said the state needs more funding to achieve its goals.
The $41.3 million funding the Renewable Portfolio Standard program is not sufficient to change New York's energy use, the task force said. The RPS program was created to improve energy security, help diversify the state's electricity options and increase economic development opportunities in the renewables industry.
The task force is to identify and recommend potential markets for investment invest that would increase the state's use of renewable energy and alternative fuels.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8RSPAHO0.htm
Green power
How California's PG&E is transforming itself into the very model of a modern utility company.
By Katherine Ellison
Business 2.0 Magazine
September 26 2007
(Business 2.0 Magazine) -- A 22-foot-long, neon-green banner hangs from the high-ceilinged lobby of the San Francisco headquarters of Pacific Gas & Electric, California's largest utility. "GREEN IS resisting the urge to drive to yoga," it declares. "GREEN IS saying no thanks to the daily disposable coffee cup." Never mind that right beneath the banner a woman is selling coffee in plastic-foam cups. There's richer irony here. Why in the world, you might well ask, is a giant utility telling people not to use products that consume energy?
The answer: This energy company has risen from bankruptcy to become one of the planet's most prestigious - and profitable - brokers in green power. Wrapped in the mantle of environmentalism and touting the virtues of saving kilowatts, planting trees, and driving electric cars, the 155-year-old, $12.5 billion behemoth these days is acting less like a robber baron than a Silicon Valley venture capitalist. It's exploring, even incubating, cutting-edge technologies - from solar power to wave energy to biogas produced from cow manure. Along the way, it's giving other big energy firms a lesson in how to adapt to a carbon-constrained world, without - at least so far - getting burned.
In short, PG&E is turning itself into a role model for 21st-century utilities. That means making money by transmitting renewable energy wherever it may be generated - from the water flowing under the Golden Gate Bridge to the batteries of hybrid electric cars - all while managing an interactive power grid. Peter Darbee, CEO and chairman of PG&E Corp., the company that owns Pacific Gas & Electric, describes the sophisticated network that will hold it all together as the energy equivalent of the Internet.
While PG&E isn't the only American power firm that's going green, it is way ahead of the pack of investor-owned utilities in some important ways, including its connections in Silicon Valley and its willingness to use its political muscle to support environmental initiatives, such as limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. "It's certainly a viable strategy, out West in particular," notes Morningstar analyst Travis Miller. "The regulators have given PG&E a blank checkbook to go ahead and build everything they need to expand that renewable portfolio, and that's going to give them a lot of growth."
These are nervous times for America's electric power industry. More than two dozen states have followed California's lead and now require utilities to obtain a portion of their electricity from renewable sources. (The Golden State's target is 20 percent by 2010.) In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, there's a new push to curb national greenhouse-gas emissions, about 40 percent of which come from electric utilities. Rather than trying to hold back the tide, PG&E is surfing the green wave, throwing its weight behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's environmental initiatives and the state's landmark global-warming law as well as some congressional greenhouse-gas-cutting efforts. It's not exactly a popular position among PG&E's peers in the $387 billion segment of the industry composed of publicly traded companies, especially those in the coal-burning business. But as Darbee sees it, it's better to be at the table than on the menu. (Better still, in Darbee's case, to be splashed across the glossy pages of Vanity Fair, whose May issue hailed him as an "eco-warrior.")
"This is a defining moment for utilities," says Darbee, a golden-haired former high school wrestling champ, from his 24th-floor office with stunning views of San Francisco Bay. "Are we going to be central players in shaping the new energy economy that is now emerging, or are we going to leave these challenges to others?" Change won't be easy for the giant utility, and PG&E is taking a big risk. It's betting heavily on technologies with little or no track record. It must also counter a growing movement among California cities and counties to abandon the investor-owned utilities and buy their own power, a trend that could leave PG&E stranded with costly new investments in technologies nobody wants.
The city furthest along on this path is PG&E's hometown of San Francisco. In June, the city's board of supervisors gave staff the go-ahead to put together a plan that advocates say could provide San Francisco with 50 percent renewable energy by 2017.
On a national level too, the stakes are high. Many observers anticipate that the United States will impose some sort of cap on greenhouse gases within the next few years. Utilities that fail to cut their emissions could end up paying heavy penalties in carbon taxes. PG&E is preparing for greenhouse-gas caps by investing in a more efficient grid and fostering innovation in renewable energy. Says Des McGinnes, business development manager at Ocean Power Delivery, a nine-year-old Scottish wave-energy firm that's in discussions with PG&E about building a wave farm off the Northern California coast, "PG&E is walking the talk."
PG&E's origins stretch back to the Gold Rush, with the company's founding in 1852 as the San Francisco Gas Co. A series of mergers produced the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in 1905; the company survived the great earthquake one year later to grow into a powerful regulated monopoly. But a century of growth and prosperity came to an abrupt end on April 6, 2001, when PG&E filed for bankruptcy. California's three-year experiment in energy deregulation had produced not lower prices but rolling blackouts and a $7 billion utility bill.
Darbee, then CFO, had joined PG&E during the first year of deregulation after a career in telecommunications and finance, including stints at Goldman Sachs (Charts, Fortune 500) and Salomon Bros. He vowed to turn things around, and he got his chance in January 2005 when he took over as CEO. Darbee was then 51, and certainly no eco-warrior; he wasn't even convinced that climate change was real. But as it turned out, those hard times helped free PG&E and other California utilities to adapt to the climate-change era. Forced to sell off most of its power plants during deregulation, PG&E was now a buyer of energy and could choose what kind of energy it wanted to purchase. This coincided with the greening of the Governator, who in 2006 signed a landmark law to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.
Watching all this transpire, Darbee asked his staff whether PG&E had a strategy to deal with climate change. To his surprise, it didn't. So, early in 2006, Darbee invited a group of experts to conduct a crash course in global warming for the company's top managers. One scientist, Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, gave the executives some blunt advice: "Sooner or later, there's going to be another [Hurricane] Katrina, and you could get an irrationally high carbon tax stuffed down your throat," he said. "So why don't you stop trying to derail the train and try to drive it?"
Darbee took Schneider's pragmatism to heart. PG&E began to lobby for more -not less - regulation of its industry. It was also the only big California utility to actively back the state's global-warming bill. Without that key support, the legislation might not have passed, says former Schwarzenegger adviser Terry Tamminen. In return, he says, PG&E was able to negotiate "a lot of changes" that made the bill more flexible.
Among utilities, PG&E is particularly well suited for thriving in a carbon-constrained world. With just 2 percent of its in-state electricity generated by coal, it was already greener than most of the nation's big utilities. It also benefits from the way California regulates its utilities. Their sales are separated, or "decoupled," from revenue, so they neither earn more by selling more energy nor lose money by promoting efficiency measures that reduce those sales.
Instead, California's utilities make a guaranteed profit on all their investments - $2.8 billion this year for PG&E. The regulators have also approved big budgets for energy efficiency, something that has helped PG&E's top business clients save money, while boosting PG&E's bottom line. The $300 million PG&E set aside for energy efficiency in 2007 includes a lot of "customer education," which often doubles as public relations for the company. "This is not a normal business, like the bubble-gum business, where you can make money by selling more gum. If a regulator will let you, you can make money by selling less of the product," notes David Victor, director of Stanford's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. "The single most important relationship is with the regulators."
Yet as concern about global warming increases, PG&E's fortunes also will depend on its relationships with the entrepreneurs the utility hopes will supply enough green energy to meet the targets set by the state's energy bureaucrats. And that's giving green startups a chance to score some very big deals.
At 'Summer Davos,' hard talk about soft power
On another unseasonably warm early-spring morning in downtown San Francisco, about three dozen entrepreneurs sit in a darkened PG&E auditorium as a company executive tells them the utility is "open to any and all offers" to provide as much as 800 megawatts of clean power. Among those in the audience is John Pimentel, a business-suited former state bureaucrat who has a plan to make biofuel and energy from nonrecyclable trash. This is PG&E's fourth annual request for proposals as it seeks to meet the state's renewable-energy target of 20 percent by 2010. It's still short; only 12 percent of the utility's delivered energy currently meets that standard - though it has signed contracts for 18 percent. "We have a lot more renewable megawords than renewable megawatts," scoffs renewable-energy lobbyist V. John White, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. In fact, Southern California Edison, with a much less vividly green public profile, has surged ahead of PG&E, with 17 percent of its mix from renewable energy.
So the heat is on PG&E - and it's getting hotter. State officials recently approved a new target of 33 percent renewables by 2020. And earlier this year, regulators banned utilities from signing long-term contracts with out-of-state coal-fired power plants - the source of 20 percent of California's electricity.
That's why PG&E is turning for help to Silicon Valley, where there's a boom in new clean-energy technology fueled by venture capital. To be sure, it's a brave entrepreneur who will chase this holy grail and risk failure at the hands of a lumbering corporate bureaucracy and the numerous government agencies that regulate the industry. "They're opening the door," Pimentel says, "but there's still a thick forest to walk through." Darbee maintains that only a few current technologies offer the hope of a fast scale-up at a price reasonably competitive with that of fossil fuel. One of these is wind power, which PG&E is pursuing. PG&E is also betting that solar power - or, more specifically, massive-megawatt "Big Solar" power plants operating in the deserts of California and the Southwest - will help it meet its targets.
Cash in on the rebuilding boom
The utility is working on three major solar projects expected to start delivering power between 2009 and 2011. Each is in the 200-to 500-megawatt range, enough to light as many as 700,000 homes at prices competitive with those for natural gas. The first deal was a 500-megawatt agreement with Bright-Source Energy, an Oakland, Calif., startup funded by Silicon Valley VCs and run by veteran solar entrepreneur Arnold Goldman. Goldman says he's convinced that PG&E is committed to his technology. "It's a funny-strange feeling, going in there and finding a group within a utility that's actually trying to see how we can make these things happen," he says.
Then in July, PG&E announced the world's largest solar deal to date: an agreement to buy 553 megawatts of electricity from a plant to be built in the Mojave Desert by Israeli firm Solel. Silicon Valley VC Vinod Khosla, a leading green-tech investor, is working on the third potential PG&E deal with a solar power company called Ausra, which recently relocated to Palo Alto from Australia. He shares Goldman's enthusiasm about the utility. "They're not really acting like a big company," says Khosla, who appreciates the utility's nimble grasp of what he calls the "massive opportunities" to profit by adapting to climate change. "I mentioned I needed to do some due diligence, and within three or four days, they'd sent a team to Australia," he recalls.
PG&E is making progress on other fronts as well. It's leading the herd, for instance, in the emerging industry of "cow power." That's the polite name for extracting methane - a potent greenhouse gas - from cow manure and turning it into biogas that can be piped to power plants. During the past year, PG&E has signed long-term contracts with two biogas startups: Microgy, based in Golden, Colo., and BioEnergy Solutions in Bakersfield, Calif. Each aims to produce enough gas in the next two years to power 50,000 homes. "PG&E has been way out in front on this," says Microgy senior vice president Jeffrey Dasovich, who adds that the utility has devoted considerable time and resources to engineering the system to connect Microgy's machinery to its pipes.
Further out on the horizon are PG&E's plans to produce electricity from ocean currents off the Northern California coast. The utility's WaveConnect project will test wave-energy technologies with the aim of getting two 40-megawatt power plants up and running within a few years. That could provide a big boost to other wave-energy startups. McGinnes at Ocean Power Delivery, which makes a semisubmerged 459-foot cylindrical wave-energy converter called the Pelamis, says PG&E is the first U.S. utility to include wave power as part of its green-energy mix. "We see this technology as ultimately being competitive with other renewables," he says. PG&E is also seeking federal permits to test tidal power under the Golden Gate Bridge.
Perhaps just as important as where PG&E gets its power - where the wind blows, where the waves crash, where the sun shines, where the cows poop - is how it plans to share it. Instead of generating electricity in colossal centralized power plants and pushing electrons into homes and businesses, energy distribution in the future may be more a matter of give and take, of energy managed over a web that draws electricity from wherever it's abundant and sends it wherever it's needed.
We got a peek at that future one morning in May when Kyle Aarons, a 20-something PG&E employee whose title is project manager for clean air transportation, took a plug attached to a mutant Toyota Prius hybrid and stuck it in a wall socket in the utility's underground garage in San Francisco. A meter moved clockwise, showing that the nearly 9-kilowatt lithiumion battery pack installed in the back of the Prius was charging like a cell phone. Then Aarons flipped a switch, and the meter moved in the opposite direction, demonstrating how the car can also send electricity back into the grid.
Call it user-generated power. In June, PG&E and Google (Charts, Fortune 500) took the concept one step further by unveiling a solar-panel-covered carport at the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., where employees will be able to plug in a fleet of hybrid vehicles that the search giant is creating for an electric-car-sharing program.
Much work remains to be done, but the plug-in technology is revolutionary on several counts. It could help ramp up wind power, which is now nearly cost-competitive with natural gas but has the drawback of being intermittent. Vehicle-to-grid technology could change all that if plug-in hybrids become common. A driver could charge a car in the evening, tapping renewable energy when the winds blow most strongly but demand is low. When electricity demand peaks during the afternoon, hybrids plugged in at office parking lots could send power back into the grid (while owners rack up microcredits on their utility bills). If automakers embrace vehicle-to-grid, utilities could end up with valuable credits to sell to companies that exceed their greenhouse-gas-emission limits.
Of course, this will work only if the grid knows where your car is, what time you're plugged in, and what rate to charge or to credit you with. The grid, in other words, needs to be intelligent. That's where PG&E's SmartMeter comes in. This electronic device monitors a home's energy consumption in real time, allowing the utility to charge different rates as electricity demand rises and falls during the day. The meters move PG&E's model closer to Darbee's vision of "the smart energy web."
"In the future," says Roland Risser, the utility's efficiency czar, "we might send you a message and say, Do you realize your pool pump is coming on at 3 p.m.? Or that the compressor on your air conditioner is about to go out?" Such a system would create new opportunities for companies that make devices smart enough to communicate with the grid- everything from your Toyota to your toaster.
Even as PG&E goes green, it continues to make investments in less benign technologies, like liquefied gas and gas-fired power plants. Executives characterize that spending as a "bridging strategy." Darbee has also been putting out the word that more nuclear power could be a good thing for a warming world, California's 30-year-old moratorium on new nuclear plants notwithstanding.
Positions like these have alienated San Francisco's liberal board of supervisors, who think they can move faster on fighting climate change than a profit-motivated utility can. Mayor Gavin Newsom has quietly supported efforts to seek independent sources of green energy, and now several other California cities and counties are preparing similar plans. That, however, doesn't seem to have hurt PG&E's bottom line. Its financial prospects, in fact, would make any respectable utility manager green - with envy. PG&E Corp.'s stock price jumped 27.5 percent last year and hit an all-time high closing price of $52.11 in April. Counting dividends, PG&E shareholders earned a 31.6 percent return for 2006.
Darbee is confident that his company is now more prepared than just about any U.S. utility to weather a predicted new storm of climate-change legislation. "There's going to be mandatory carbon regulation within the next two to three years," Darbee says, "and the probability reaches 100 percent in four years. We're going to be ready for it. There's a saying I learned during my days on Wall Street: You don't fight the tape."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/technology/green_power.biz2/index.htm
How California's PG&E is transforming itself into the very model of a modern utility company.
By Katherine Ellison
Business 2.0 Magazine
September 26 2007
(Business 2.0 Magazine) -- A 22-foot-long, neon-green banner hangs from the high-ceilinged lobby of the San Francisco headquarters of Pacific Gas & Electric, California's largest utility. "GREEN IS resisting the urge to drive to yoga," it declares. "GREEN IS saying no thanks to the daily disposable coffee cup." Never mind that right beneath the banner a woman is selling coffee in plastic-foam cups. There's richer irony here. Why in the world, you might well ask, is a giant utility telling people not to use products that consume energy?
The answer: This energy company has risen from bankruptcy to become one of the planet's most prestigious - and profitable - brokers in green power. Wrapped in the mantle of environmentalism and touting the virtues of saving kilowatts, planting trees, and driving electric cars, the 155-year-old, $12.5 billion behemoth these days is acting less like a robber baron than a Silicon Valley venture capitalist. It's exploring, even incubating, cutting-edge technologies - from solar power to wave energy to biogas produced from cow manure. Along the way, it's giving other big energy firms a lesson in how to adapt to a carbon-constrained world, without - at least so far - getting burned.
In short, PG&E is turning itself into a role model for 21st-century utilities. That means making money by transmitting renewable energy wherever it may be generated - from the water flowing under the Golden Gate Bridge to the batteries of hybrid electric cars - all while managing an interactive power grid. Peter Darbee, CEO and chairman of PG&E Corp., the company that owns Pacific Gas & Electric, describes the sophisticated network that will hold it all together as the energy equivalent of the Internet.
While PG&E isn't the only American power firm that's going green, it is way ahead of the pack of investor-owned utilities in some important ways, including its connections in Silicon Valley and its willingness to use its political muscle to support environmental initiatives, such as limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. "It's certainly a viable strategy, out West in particular," notes Morningstar analyst Travis Miller. "The regulators have given PG&E a blank checkbook to go ahead and build everything they need to expand that renewable portfolio, and that's going to give them a lot of growth."
These are nervous times for America's electric power industry. More than two dozen states have followed California's lead and now require utilities to obtain a portion of their electricity from renewable sources. (The Golden State's target is 20 percent by 2010.) In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, there's a new push to curb national greenhouse-gas emissions, about 40 percent of which come from electric utilities. Rather than trying to hold back the tide, PG&E is surfing the green wave, throwing its weight behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's environmental initiatives and the state's landmark global-warming law as well as some congressional greenhouse-gas-cutting efforts. It's not exactly a popular position among PG&E's peers in the $387 billion segment of the industry composed of publicly traded companies, especially those in the coal-burning business. But as Darbee sees it, it's better to be at the table than on the menu. (Better still, in Darbee's case, to be splashed across the glossy pages of Vanity Fair, whose May issue hailed him as an "eco-warrior.")
"This is a defining moment for utilities," says Darbee, a golden-haired former high school wrestling champ, from his 24th-floor office with stunning views of San Francisco Bay. "Are we going to be central players in shaping the new energy economy that is now emerging, or are we going to leave these challenges to others?" Change won't be easy for the giant utility, and PG&E is taking a big risk. It's betting heavily on technologies with little or no track record. It must also counter a growing movement among California cities and counties to abandon the investor-owned utilities and buy their own power, a trend that could leave PG&E stranded with costly new investments in technologies nobody wants.
The city furthest along on this path is PG&E's hometown of San Francisco. In June, the city's board of supervisors gave staff the go-ahead to put together a plan that advocates say could provide San Francisco with 50 percent renewable energy by 2017.
On a national level too, the stakes are high. Many observers anticipate that the United States will impose some sort of cap on greenhouse gases within the next few years. Utilities that fail to cut their emissions could end up paying heavy penalties in carbon taxes. PG&E is preparing for greenhouse-gas caps by investing in a more efficient grid and fostering innovation in renewable energy. Says Des McGinnes, business development manager at Ocean Power Delivery, a nine-year-old Scottish wave-energy firm that's in discussions with PG&E about building a wave farm off the Northern California coast, "PG&E is walking the talk."
PG&E's origins stretch back to the Gold Rush, with the company's founding in 1852 as the San Francisco Gas Co. A series of mergers produced the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in 1905; the company survived the great earthquake one year later to grow into a powerful regulated monopoly. But a century of growth and prosperity came to an abrupt end on April 6, 2001, when PG&E filed for bankruptcy. California's three-year experiment in energy deregulation had produced not lower prices but rolling blackouts and a $7 billion utility bill.
Darbee, then CFO, had joined PG&E during the first year of deregulation after a career in telecommunications and finance, including stints at Goldman Sachs (Charts, Fortune 500) and Salomon Bros. He vowed to turn things around, and he got his chance in January 2005 when he took over as CEO. Darbee was then 51, and certainly no eco-warrior; he wasn't even convinced that climate change was real. But as it turned out, those hard times helped free PG&E and other California utilities to adapt to the climate-change era. Forced to sell off most of its power plants during deregulation, PG&E was now a buyer of energy and could choose what kind of energy it wanted to purchase. This coincided with the greening of the Governator, who in 2006 signed a landmark law to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.
Watching all this transpire, Darbee asked his staff whether PG&E had a strategy to deal with climate change. To his surprise, it didn't. So, early in 2006, Darbee invited a group of experts to conduct a crash course in global warming for the company's top managers. One scientist, Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, gave the executives some blunt advice: "Sooner or later, there's going to be another [Hurricane] Katrina, and you could get an irrationally high carbon tax stuffed down your throat," he said. "So why don't you stop trying to derail the train and try to drive it?"
Darbee took Schneider's pragmatism to heart. PG&E began to lobby for more -not less - regulation of its industry. It was also the only big California utility to actively back the state's global-warming bill. Without that key support, the legislation might not have passed, says former Schwarzenegger adviser Terry Tamminen. In return, he says, PG&E was able to negotiate "a lot of changes" that made the bill more flexible.
Among utilities, PG&E is particularly well suited for thriving in a carbon-constrained world. With just 2 percent of its in-state electricity generated by coal, it was already greener than most of the nation's big utilities. It also benefits from the way California regulates its utilities. Their sales are separated, or "decoupled," from revenue, so they neither earn more by selling more energy nor lose money by promoting efficiency measures that reduce those sales.
Instead, California's utilities make a guaranteed profit on all their investments - $2.8 billion this year for PG&E. The regulators have also approved big budgets for energy efficiency, something that has helped PG&E's top business clients save money, while boosting PG&E's bottom line. The $300 million PG&E set aside for energy efficiency in 2007 includes a lot of "customer education," which often doubles as public relations for the company. "This is not a normal business, like the bubble-gum business, where you can make money by selling more gum. If a regulator will let you, you can make money by selling less of the product," notes David Victor, director of Stanford's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. "The single most important relationship is with the regulators."
Yet as concern about global warming increases, PG&E's fortunes also will depend on its relationships with the entrepreneurs the utility hopes will supply enough green energy to meet the targets set by the state's energy bureaucrats. And that's giving green startups a chance to score some very big deals.
At 'Summer Davos,' hard talk about soft power
On another unseasonably warm early-spring morning in downtown San Francisco, about three dozen entrepreneurs sit in a darkened PG&E auditorium as a company executive tells them the utility is "open to any and all offers" to provide as much as 800 megawatts of clean power. Among those in the audience is John Pimentel, a business-suited former state bureaucrat who has a plan to make biofuel and energy from nonrecyclable trash. This is PG&E's fourth annual request for proposals as it seeks to meet the state's renewable-energy target of 20 percent by 2010. It's still short; only 12 percent of the utility's delivered energy currently meets that standard - though it has signed contracts for 18 percent. "We have a lot more renewable megawords than renewable megawatts," scoffs renewable-energy lobbyist V. John White, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. In fact, Southern California Edison, with a much less vividly green public profile, has surged ahead of PG&E, with 17 percent of its mix from renewable energy.
So the heat is on PG&E - and it's getting hotter. State officials recently approved a new target of 33 percent renewables by 2020. And earlier this year, regulators banned utilities from signing long-term contracts with out-of-state coal-fired power plants - the source of 20 percent of California's electricity.
That's why PG&E is turning for help to Silicon Valley, where there's a boom in new clean-energy technology fueled by venture capital. To be sure, it's a brave entrepreneur who will chase this holy grail and risk failure at the hands of a lumbering corporate bureaucracy and the numerous government agencies that regulate the industry. "They're opening the door," Pimentel says, "but there's still a thick forest to walk through." Darbee maintains that only a few current technologies offer the hope of a fast scale-up at a price reasonably competitive with that of fossil fuel. One of these is wind power, which PG&E is pursuing. PG&E is also betting that solar power - or, more specifically, massive-megawatt "Big Solar" power plants operating in the deserts of California and the Southwest - will help it meet its targets.
Cash in on the rebuilding boom
The utility is working on three major solar projects expected to start delivering power between 2009 and 2011. Each is in the 200-to 500-megawatt range, enough to light as many as 700,000 homes at prices competitive with those for natural gas. The first deal was a 500-megawatt agreement with Bright-Source Energy, an Oakland, Calif., startup funded by Silicon Valley VCs and run by veteran solar entrepreneur Arnold Goldman. Goldman says he's convinced that PG&E is committed to his technology. "It's a funny-strange feeling, going in there and finding a group within a utility that's actually trying to see how we can make these things happen," he says.
Then in July, PG&E announced the world's largest solar deal to date: an agreement to buy 553 megawatts of electricity from a plant to be built in the Mojave Desert by Israeli firm Solel. Silicon Valley VC Vinod Khosla, a leading green-tech investor, is working on the third potential PG&E deal with a solar power company called Ausra, which recently relocated to Palo Alto from Australia. He shares Goldman's enthusiasm about the utility. "They're not really acting like a big company," says Khosla, who appreciates the utility's nimble grasp of what he calls the "massive opportunities" to profit by adapting to climate change. "I mentioned I needed to do some due diligence, and within three or four days, they'd sent a team to Australia," he recalls.
PG&E is making progress on other fronts as well. It's leading the herd, for instance, in the emerging industry of "cow power." That's the polite name for extracting methane - a potent greenhouse gas - from cow manure and turning it into biogas that can be piped to power plants. During the past year, PG&E has signed long-term contracts with two biogas startups: Microgy, based in Golden, Colo., and BioEnergy Solutions in Bakersfield, Calif. Each aims to produce enough gas in the next two years to power 50,000 homes. "PG&E has been way out in front on this," says Microgy senior vice president Jeffrey Dasovich, who adds that the utility has devoted considerable time and resources to engineering the system to connect Microgy's machinery to its pipes.
Further out on the horizon are PG&E's plans to produce electricity from ocean currents off the Northern California coast. The utility's WaveConnect project will test wave-energy technologies with the aim of getting two 40-megawatt power plants up and running within a few years. That could provide a big boost to other wave-energy startups. McGinnes at Ocean Power Delivery, which makes a semisubmerged 459-foot cylindrical wave-energy converter called the Pelamis, says PG&E is the first U.S. utility to include wave power as part of its green-energy mix. "We see this technology as ultimately being competitive with other renewables," he says. PG&E is also seeking federal permits to test tidal power under the Golden Gate Bridge.
Perhaps just as important as where PG&E gets its power - where the wind blows, where the waves crash, where the sun shines, where the cows poop - is how it plans to share it. Instead of generating electricity in colossal centralized power plants and pushing electrons into homes and businesses, energy distribution in the future may be more a matter of give and take, of energy managed over a web that draws electricity from wherever it's abundant and sends it wherever it's needed.
We got a peek at that future one morning in May when Kyle Aarons, a 20-something PG&E employee whose title is project manager for clean air transportation, took a plug attached to a mutant Toyota Prius hybrid and stuck it in a wall socket in the utility's underground garage in San Francisco. A meter moved clockwise, showing that the nearly 9-kilowatt lithiumion battery pack installed in the back of the Prius was charging like a cell phone. Then Aarons flipped a switch, and the meter moved in the opposite direction, demonstrating how the car can also send electricity back into the grid.
Call it user-generated power. In June, PG&E and Google (Charts, Fortune 500) took the concept one step further by unveiling a solar-panel-covered carport at the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., where employees will be able to plug in a fleet of hybrid vehicles that the search giant is creating for an electric-car-sharing program.
Much work remains to be done, but the plug-in technology is revolutionary on several counts. It could help ramp up wind power, which is now nearly cost-competitive with natural gas but has the drawback of being intermittent. Vehicle-to-grid technology could change all that if plug-in hybrids become common. A driver could charge a car in the evening, tapping renewable energy when the winds blow most strongly but demand is low. When electricity demand peaks during the afternoon, hybrids plugged in at office parking lots could send power back into the grid (while owners rack up microcredits on their utility bills). If automakers embrace vehicle-to-grid, utilities could end up with valuable credits to sell to companies that exceed their greenhouse-gas-emission limits.
Of course, this will work only if the grid knows where your car is, what time you're plugged in, and what rate to charge or to credit you with. The grid, in other words, needs to be intelligent. That's where PG&E's SmartMeter comes in. This electronic device monitors a home's energy consumption in real time, allowing the utility to charge different rates as electricity demand rises and falls during the day. The meters move PG&E's model closer to Darbee's vision of "the smart energy web."
"In the future," says Roland Risser, the utility's efficiency czar, "we might send you a message and say, Do you realize your pool pump is coming on at 3 p.m.? Or that the compressor on your air conditioner is about to go out?" Such a system would create new opportunities for companies that make devices smart enough to communicate with the grid- everything from your Toyota to your toaster.
Even as PG&E goes green, it continues to make investments in less benign technologies, like liquefied gas and gas-fired power plants. Executives characterize that spending as a "bridging strategy." Darbee has also been putting out the word that more nuclear power could be a good thing for a warming world, California's 30-year-old moratorium on new nuclear plants notwithstanding.
Positions like these have alienated San Francisco's liberal board of supervisors, who think they can move faster on fighting climate change than a profit-motivated utility can. Mayor Gavin Newsom has quietly supported efforts to seek independent sources of green energy, and now several other California cities and counties are preparing similar plans. That, however, doesn't seem to have hurt PG&E's bottom line. Its financial prospects, in fact, would make any respectable utility manager green - with envy. PG&E Corp.'s stock price jumped 27.5 percent last year and hit an all-time high closing price of $52.11 in April. Counting dividends, PG&E shareholders earned a 31.6 percent return for 2006.
Darbee is confident that his company is now more prepared than just about any U.S. utility to weather a predicted new storm of climate-change legislation. "There's going to be mandatory carbon regulation within the next two to three years," Darbee says, "and the probability reaches 100 percent in four years. We're going to be ready for it. There's a saying I learned during my days on Wall Street: You don't fight the tape."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/technology/green_power.biz2/index.htm
California panel OKs controversial Calpine plant
Wed Sep 26, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 26 (Reuters) - California energy regulators on Wednesday approved construction of a controversial power plant by Calpine Corpin the city of Hayward across the bay from San Francisco. The 600-megawatt natural gas-fired plant drew opposition from local residents and environmentalists and raised concerns about aviation safety because of its location near the Hayward Executive Airport.
The staff of the California Energy Commission in July said it could not recommend the project because hot air rising from the proposed plant's exhaust stacks could be a hazard for aircraft taking off and landing at the airport. The plant was initially certified by the commission in 2002 but was not built for various reasons. The Federal Aviation Administration early in September questioned the safety issue and asked for more time to study the project.
David Butterfield, an FAA official, told the commission on Wednesday that pilots of fixed wing planes and helicopters should avoid flying through the exhaust plume when they are below 1,000 feet. Butterfield said he expects pilots will fly through a plume but did not see that as a significant safety hazard, adding it is an "acceptable risk."
The plant also was opposed by the Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay chapter which said the commission should reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by pushing for more energy efficiency and building up supplies of renewable energy.
Calpine said clean-energy technologies will make the plant 40 percent more fuel efficient and allow for more than a 90 percent reduction of emissions compared to an average fossil-fueled power plant. Construction of the $600 million plant, called the Russell City Energy Center, is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2008 with commercial operation to begin by the summer of 2010. General Electric'sEnergy Financial Services unit has a 35 percent stake in the project.
It will sell the electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-09-26T200832Z_01_N26297593_RTRIDST_0_CALPINE-PLANT.XML
Wed Sep 26, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 26 (Reuters) - California energy regulators on Wednesday approved construction of a controversial power plant by Calpine Corp
The staff of the California Energy Commission in July said it could not recommend the project because hot air rising from the proposed plant's exhaust stacks could be a hazard for aircraft taking off and landing at the airport. The plant was initially certified by the commission in 2002 but was not built for various reasons. The Federal Aviation Administration early in September questioned the safety issue and asked for more time to study the project.
David Butterfield, an FAA official, told the commission on Wednesday that pilots of fixed wing planes and helicopters should avoid flying through the exhaust plume when they are below 1,000 feet. Butterfield said he expects pilots will fly through a plume but did not see that as a significant safety hazard, adding it is an "acceptable risk."
The plant also was opposed by the Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay chapter which said the commission should reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by pushing for more energy efficiency and building up supplies of renewable energy.
Calpine said clean-energy technologies will make the plant 40 percent more fuel efficient and allow for more than a 90 percent reduction of emissions compared to an average fossil-fueled power plant. Construction of the $600 million plant, called the Russell City Energy Center, is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2008 with commercial operation to begin by the summer of 2010. General Electric's
It will sell the electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric Co
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-09-26T200832Z_01_N26297593_RTRIDST_0_CALPINE-PLANT.XML
A Mighty Wind
Rooftop wind turbines are an increasingly popular way to generate electricity in cities
By Susan Cosier
The wind turbines that engineer Bil Becker installed on top of a Chicago apartment building last year probably don’t resemble the structures that pop into your head when you think “windmill.” Instead of propellers mounted on soaring poles, these turbines are made primarily with curved, galvanized steel shaped like the double helix of DNA. This special design means that they can generate renewable electricity in the densely-built urban environment, unlike their counterparts found twirling in the boonies.
Becker’s Chicago company, Aerotecture International, is just one of a growing number that is developing rooftop wind turbine technology. Unlike the towering, free-standing commercial variety, these vertical-axis wind turbines extend from buildings, capturing winds blowing from any direction. Some can generate electricity in conditions running the gamut from 8-mile-per-hour breezes to 100-mile-per-hour gusts—a range nearly three times that of conventional, horizontal-axis turbines. New rooftop wind turbines don’t have the same problems as their predecessors: They’re safer for wildlife, quieter, and don’t vibrate violently in howling winds. And, at as little as $3,000, they’re increasingly affordable. Obstacles to widespread implementation remain, but the number of buildings crowned with spinning turbines climbs every year.
“People love the way they seem to dance,” says Becker, a professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Illinois, Chicago who founded Aerotecture International two years ago. The structures aren’t just aesthetically appealing, he adds. “We learned to make them safe, lightweight, and quiet.”
Rooftop systems aren’t entirely new. In 1976, owners of a co-op in New York City installed the first urban rooftop windmill that contributed energy to the northeastern power grid. The turbine generated 200 kilowatt-hours of electricity each month, meeting 110 percent of their common-use energy needs, such as lighting hallways and heating water.
Despite this successful example, rooftop wind turbines were slow to catch on. Over time, however, the materials and designs improved, and people became increasingly aware of the environmental benefits of renewable energy. As a result, there has been as much as a 25 percent growth in small wind energy projects over the last 15 years, according to the American Wind Energy Association. This demand is helping the industry expand.
“We want competition,” Becker says. “There are 3.5 billion urban customers out there and there’s no way we can meet the needs for all of them.”
Other companies vying for urban clients include the British company Quiet Revolution, Cleanfield Energy in Ontario, and PacWind in California. “We can’t make the turbines fast enough,” says Philippa Rogers, spokesperson for Quiet Revolution. PacWind just allied with a company to help manufacture turbines on a large scale. Right now many of them are sprinkled throughout the U.S., but company president Phil Watkins estimates that more than 40,000 turbines will be distributed by this time next year.
Each design comes at a different price depending on its size and energy-generating capacity. PacWind offers a turbine for residential homes for about $3,000 (without installation) that can produce 2,160 kilowatt-hours of electricity. At the other end of the cost spectrum, one of Quiet Revolution’s turbines designed for commercial buildings sells for about $50,000 without installation and generates up to 9,600 kilowatt-hours of electricity a year—about ten percent of the energy needed to power a 6,500-square-foot office building. (The cost of installation varies, but typically increases the total price tag by about 35 percent.)
Still, not everyone is convinced that rooftop wind turbines are the best way to generate renewable energy. “Small windmills on rooftops are an unfortunate distraction from the real work of building a renewable energy society,” says Paul Gipe, who has written numerous books and studied wind energy for 30 years. Instead, Gipe says, we should focus on promoting solar panels and wind farms made up of large turbines and owned by cooperatives and municipal utility companies.
Aside from the fact that rooftop systems can still be expensive to build and install—mainly because there aren’t many companies supplying materials yet—there is also no certification process in place for small wind turbines that would verify their safety and performance. The American Wind Energy Association is currently working to develop standards that will allow “turbines to be compared apples to apples,” says Ron Stimmel, an association spokesperson.
Though the certification process won’t be finalized for at least another year, wind energy advocates say that the industry will continue to grow in the meantime. That, in part, is because the benefits of creating renewable energy in cities outweigh the drawbacks, according to Watkins of PacWind. “We get the power here where we need it instead of spending huge amounts of money building grid systems and infrastructure,” he says.
Becker says he’d like to see city buildings become mini power plants. His company is one of those working on ways to further improve urban wind technology by designing buildings that accelerate wind through a turbine to generate more electricity. Becker predicts that “the most prevalent renewable energy form in the next 50 years will be wind-capturing devices.”
http://www.plentymag.com/features/2007/09/a_mighty_wind.php?page=1
Rooftop wind turbines are an increasingly popular way to generate electricity in cities
By Susan Cosier
The wind turbines that engineer Bil Becker installed on top of a Chicago apartment building last year probably don’t resemble the structures that pop into your head when you think “windmill.” Instead of propellers mounted on soaring poles, these turbines are made primarily with curved, galvanized steel shaped like the double helix of DNA. This special design means that they can generate renewable electricity in the densely-built urban environment, unlike their counterparts found twirling in the boonies.
Becker’s Chicago company, Aerotecture International, is just one of a growing number that is developing rooftop wind turbine technology. Unlike the towering, free-standing commercial variety, these vertical-axis wind turbines extend from buildings, capturing winds blowing from any direction. Some can generate electricity in conditions running the gamut from 8-mile-per-hour breezes to 100-mile-per-hour gusts—a range nearly three times that of conventional, horizontal-axis turbines. New rooftop wind turbines don’t have the same problems as their predecessors: They’re safer for wildlife, quieter, and don’t vibrate violently in howling winds. And, at as little as $3,000, they’re increasingly affordable. Obstacles to widespread implementation remain, but the number of buildings crowned with spinning turbines climbs every year.
“People love the way they seem to dance,” says Becker, a professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Illinois, Chicago who founded Aerotecture International two years ago. The structures aren’t just aesthetically appealing, he adds. “We learned to make them safe, lightweight, and quiet.”
Rooftop systems aren’t entirely new. In 1976, owners of a co-op in New York City installed the first urban rooftop windmill that contributed energy to the northeastern power grid. The turbine generated 200 kilowatt-hours of electricity each month, meeting 110 percent of their common-use energy needs, such as lighting hallways and heating water.
Despite this successful example, rooftop wind turbines were slow to catch on. Over time, however, the materials and designs improved, and people became increasingly aware of the environmental benefits of renewable energy. As a result, there has been as much as a 25 percent growth in small wind energy projects over the last 15 years, according to the American Wind Energy Association. This demand is helping the industry expand.
“We want competition,” Becker says. “There are 3.5 billion urban customers out there and there’s no way we can meet the needs for all of them.”
Other companies vying for urban clients include the British company Quiet Revolution, Cleanfield Energy in Ontario, and PacWind in California. “We can’t make the turbines fast enough,” says Philippa Rogers, spokesperson for Quiet Revolution. PacWind just allied with a company to help manufacture turbines on a large scale. Right now many of them are sprinkled throughout the U.S., but company president Phil Watkins estimates that more than 40,000 turbines will be distributed by this time next year.
Each design comes at a different price depending on its size and energy-generating capacity. PacWind offers a turbine for residential homes for about $3,000 (without installation) that can produce 2,160 kilowatt-hours of electricity. At the other end of the cost spectrum, one of Quiet Revolution’s turbines designed for commercial buildings sells for about $50,000 without installation and generates up to 9,600 kilowatt-hours of electricity a year—about ten percent of the energy needed to power a 6,500-square-foot office building. (The cost of installation varies, but typically increases the total price tag by about 35 percent.)
Still, not everyone is convinced that rooftop wind turbines are the best way to generate renewable energy. “Small windmills on rooftops are an unfortunate distraction from the real work of building a renewable energy society,” says Paul Gipe, who has written numerous books and studied wind energy for 30 years. Instead, Gipe says, we should focus on promoting solar panels and wind farms made up of large turbines and owned by cooperatives and municipal utility companies.
Aside from the fact that rooftop systems can still be expensive to build and install—mainly because there aren’t many companies supplying materials yet—there is also no certification process in place for small wind turbines that would verify their safety and performance. The American Wind Energy Association is currently working to develop standards that will allow “turbines to be compared apples to apples,” says Ron Stimmel, an association spokesperson.
Though the certification process won’t be finalized for at least another year, wind energy advocates say that the industry will continue to grow in the meantime. That, in part, is because the benefits of creating renewable energy in cities outweigh the drawbacks, according to Watkins of PacWind. “We get the power here where we need it instead of spending huge amounts of money building grid systems and infrastructure,” he says.
Becker says he’d like to see city buildings become mini power plants. His company is one of those working on ways to further improve urban wind technology by designing buildings that accelerate wind through a turbine to generate more electricity. Becker predicts that “the most prevalent renewable energy form in the next 50 years will be wind-capturing devices.”
http://www.plentymag.com/features/2007/09/a_mighty_wind.php?page=1
Green Paper 'Towards a new culture for urban mobility”
Mario Sina
26/9/2007
The European Commission adopted a Green Paper with the title 'Towards a new culture for urban mobility”, which is going to open a debate on the key issues of urban mobility: free-flowing and greener towns and cities, smarter urban mobility and an urban transport which is accessible, safe and secure for all European citizens.
The Green Paper presents a set of policy issues for urban mobility and includes twenty-five open questions addressing these options. The questions address, for example, how the quality of collective transport can be improved, how the use of clean and energy efficient technologies can be increased, how walking and cycling can be promoted and how the rights of collective transport passengers can be protected. Other questions look at the idea of a 'labelling'' scheme for pioneering cities, the development of guidance for Green Zones with restrictive measures, and the promotion of the use of urban road user charging. Furthermore, it sets a European agenda for urban mobility, while respecting the responsibilities of local, regional and national authorities in this field.
On the other hand, the Commission wants to launch a discussion on how it can best enable the development of a new culture for urban mobility in Europe. Therefore, this Green Paper marks the start of a new consultation phase and will be discussed by the European institutions. Citizens and stakeholders are invited to share their views with the Commission until 15 March 2008, while an Action Plan on urban mobility will follow in the early autumn of 2008.
For more information on the Green Paper and the consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport/index_en.htm
http://www.businessupdated.com/shownews.asp?news_id=2623&cat=Green+Paper+'Towards+a+new+culture+for+urban+mobility%E2%80%9D
Mario Sina
26/9/2007
The European Commission adopted a Green Paper with the title 'Towards a new culture for urban mobility”, which is going to open a debate on the key issues of urban mobility: free-flowing and greener towns and cities, smarter urban mobility and an urban transport which is accessible, safe and secure for all European citizens.
The Green Paper presents a set of policy issues for urban mobility and includes twenty-five open questions addressing these options. The questions address, for example, how the quality of collective transport can be improved, how the use of clean and energy efficient technologies can be increased, how walking and cycling can be promoted and how the rights of collective transport passengers can be protected. Other questions look at the idea of a 'labelling'' scheme for pioneering cities, the development of guidance for Green Zones with restrictive measures, and the promotion of the use of urban road user charging. Furthermore, it sets a European agenda for urban mobility, while respecting the responsibilities of local, regional and national authorities in this field.
On the other hand, the Commission wants to launch a discussion on how it can best enable the development of a new culture for urban mobility in Europe. Therefore, this Green Paper marks the start of a new consultation phase and will be discussed by the European institutions. Citizens and stakeholders are invited to share their views with the Commission until 15 March 2008, while an Action Plan on urban mobility will follow in the early autumn of 2008.
For more information on the Green Paper and the consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport/index_en.htm
http://www.businessupdated.com/shownews.asp?news_id=2623&cat=Green+Paper+'Towards+a+new+culture+for+urban+mobility%E2%80%9D
Congestion Pricing’s Effects On Upper Manhattan Debated
By Daniel Amzallag
Columbia Spectator
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s hotly debated congestion pricing plan is aimed primarily at reducing traffic in the area of Manhattan below 86th Street. Yet while the focal point of the plan is downtown, its effects would ripple across the city, and local politicians and environmental activists differ dramatically on its ramifications for northern Manhattan.
Hoping to alleviate traffic as well as to reduce pollution and improve mass transit, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled his congestion pricing proposal on Earth Day 2007. Under the proposal, drivers would be charged to enter Manhattan below 86th Street. Such a plan would require the approval of the New York State Legislature. After a round of summer sparring between Bloomberg and legislative leaders, the Legislature has created a commission to develop a new plan to alleviate Manhattan traffic congestion, considering in part Bloomberg’s proposal.
Many elected officials from Morningside Heights and West Harlem have denounced the plan, saying that it will divert traffic into their neighborhoods. “The mayor tried to jam this down our throats without details,” said New York State Senator Bill Perkins, D-West Harlem and Morningside Heights. “It wasn’t simply the aggressive, self-righteous process that the mayor employed; it was the substance as well.” Bloomberg’s press office did not return calls for comment.
Bloomberg’s original congestion pricing plan called for a three-year pilot program in which passenger vehicles would pay $8 each day to enter or leave Manhattan below 86th Street, with the exception of the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, and West Street, according to the PlaNYC Report on Transportation. Vehicles that travelled through tolled bridges and tunnels would not pay this fee, as round-trip tolls are already $8.
Justin Meyers, district director to City Council member Inez Dickens, D-Morningside Heights and Harlem, stated that Dickens is “opposed to it because essentially if cars are not allowed to enter below 86th Street, a lot will enter the upper part of Manhattan, and parking is already a huge problem in Harlem.”
“The so-called solution could turn out to be contributing to the problem, because as it was designed, there was no way to avoid the area above 86th Street from becoming a parking lot and having even more congestion,” Perkins said. But Wiley Norvell, communications director for Transportation Alternatives, a citizen-based New York City group aimed at “sensible transportation,” believes congestion pricing would have “huge benefits for northern Manhattan” because “upper Manhattan neighborhoods act as funnels coming into the central business district, so if you reduce overall traffic volumes, you’ll see traffic reduction in those areas as well.” Norvell cited a 2006 study conducted by the Partnership for New York City that he said shows that neighborhoods just adjacent to the pricing zone would see a 14 percent reduction in traffic coming through Harlem.
To address concerns about drivers parking their cars in northern Manhattan, Bloomberg proposed the idea of residential parking permits, wherein only residents of northern Manhattan would be allowed to park in those areas after purchasing a city permit. Jeanine Johnson, General Counsel to State Assemblyman Keith Wright, D-West Harlem, said the Assemblyman does not support this idea, saying it would create “private streets” and that “there should be access for everyone.”
Norvell said that congestion pricing would not exacerbate the parking problem in Northern Manhattan. He gave the example of a commuter driving into central Manhattan from Westchester, NY, who, he said, would not “drive half an hour into Manhattan, spend another half an hour looking for a parking space in Harlem, and then take mass transit to work. People don’t make their transit sources that way—they take the same kind of transit the entire way.” The impact on air quality that congestion pricing could have in northern Manhattan is also a major concern, especially given record high asthma rates in Harlem. “We believe air emissions will decrease because there will be less idling, and the traffic flow will be a more consistent one,” said Peggy Shepard, executive director of the West Harlem Environmental Action group. “We are at such a critical crisis in terms of public health and air quality that we need to try this.”
But Meyers, speaking for Councilwoman Dickens, expressed fears that the plan would have the opposite effect, saying that “increased traffic uptown could lead to higher asthma rates.” New York State Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell of the 69th Assembly District, which includes parts of Morningside Heights, agreed, saying congestion pricing “will reduce them [asthma rates] inside [the congestion zone] but increase them in the places outside.” Shepard countered these claims, saying, “One thing that you have to remember when you look at air pollution is that it is dynamic and moving. If you understand the nature of air and air quality, you will realize that decreasing pollution in midtown will clean up the air in [northern] Manhattan certainly, and in other locales.”
Under Bloomberg’s plan, “the money collected through congestion pricing would raise about $400 million every year” and would be used for mass transit expansion and improvements, according to a fact sheet on congestion pricing released by the mayor’s office. “We have a real crisis in mass transit, and we need to improve it to unload this burden. Hopefully, this [congestion pricing] will generate the resources towards that end,” Perkins said.
Many have expressed concerns that congestion pricing would overload already crowded transit systems, especially in Harlem, and agree on the need for expansion. “The idea that you can discourage one form of transportation without having an impact on the others is simply wrong,” O’Donnell said. “All of the solutions mean creating alternatives, which means you have to increase capacity.”
“A lot of additional capacity would be added, such as more trains more frequently, which is currently not near capacity,” Norvell said. He argued that while congestion pricing would discourage approximately 100,000 people from driving into Manhattan, this number makes up only two percent of transit ridership.
“The huge benefactors of congestion pricing are bus riders,” Norvell added. “We can add more buses, but they’ll be stuck in traffic otherwise. We need a strong traffic reduction strategy to make buses more reliable and fast.” Bus service, he said, can inexpensively make up for the increase in transit ridership brought about by congestion pricing.
“The communities that are suffering are suffering because of traffic,” Perkins said. “So when you talk about congestion pricing, you need to talk about it beginning with what’s healthy for the community. And what’s healthy for the community will translate into what’s healthy for the economy. A healthy economy begins with a healthy community.”
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/26970
By Daniel Amzallag
Columbia Spectator
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s hotly debated congestion pricing plan is aimed primarily at reducing traffic in the area of Manhattan below 86th Street. Yet while the focal point of the plan is downtown, its effects would ripple across the city, and local politicians and environmental activists differ dramatically on its ramifications for northern Manhattan.
Hoping to alleviate traffic as well as to reduce pollution and improve mass transit, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled his congestion pricing proposal on Earth Day 2007. Under the proposal, drivers would be charged to enter Manhattan below 86th Street. Such a plan would require the approval of the New York State Legislature. After a round of summer sparring between Bloomberg and legislative leaders, the Legislature has created a commission to develop a new plan to alleviate Manhattan traffic congestion, considering in part Bloomberg’s proposal.
Many elected officials from Morningside Heights and West Harlem have denounced the plan, saying that it will divert traffic into their neighborhoods. “The mayor tried to jam this down our throats without details,” said New York State Senator Bill Perkins, D-West Harlem and Morningside Heights. “It wasn’t simply the aggressive, self-righteous process that the mayor employed; it was the substance as well.” Bloomberg’s press office did not return calls for comment.
Bloomberg’s original congestion pricing plan called for a three-year pilot program in which passenger vehicles would pay $8 each day to enter or leave Manhattan below 86th Street, with the exception of the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, and West Street, according to the PlaNYC Report on Transportation. Vehicles that travelled through tolled bridges and tunnels would not pay this fee, as round-trip tolls are already $8.
Justin Meyers, district director to City Council member Inez Dickens, D-Morningside Heights and Harlem, stated that Dickens is “opposed to it because essentially if cars are not allowed to enter below 86th Street, a lot will enter the upper part of Manhattan, and parking is already a huge problem in Harlem.”
“The so-called solution could turn out to be contributing to the problem, because as it was designed, there was no way to avoid the area above 86th Street from becoming a parking lot and having even more congestion,” Perkins said. But Wiley Norvell, communications director for Transportation Alternatives, a citizen-based New York City group aimed at “sensible transportation,” believes congestion pricing would have “huge benefits for northern Manhattan” because “upper Manhattan neighborhoods act as funnels coming into the central business district, so if you reduce overall traffic volumes, you’ll see traffic reduction in those areas as well.” Norvell cited a 2006 study conducted by the Partnership for New York City that he said shows that neighborhoods just adjacent to the pricing zone would see a 14 percent reduction in traffic coming through Harlem.
To address concerns about drivers parking their cars in northern Manhattan, Bloomberg proposed the idea of residential parking permits, wherein only residents of northern Manhattan would be allowed to park in those areas after purchasing a city permit. Jeanine Johnson, General Counsel to State Assemblyman Keith Wright, D-West Harlem, said the Assemblyman does not support this idea, saying it would create “private streets” and that “there should be access for everyone.”
Norvell said that congestion pricing would not exacerbate the parking problem in Northern Manhattan. He gave the example of a commuter driving into central Manhattan from Westchester, NY, who, he said, would not “drive half an hour into Manhattan, spend another half an hour looking for a parking space in Harlem, and then take mass transit to work. People don’t make their transit sources that way—they take the same kind of transit the entire way.” The impact on air quality that congestion pricing could have in northern Manhattan is also a major concern, especially given record high asthma rates in Harlem. “We believe air emissions will decrease because there will be less idling, and the traffic flow will be a more consistent one,” said Peggy Shepard, executive director of the West Harlem Environmental Action group. “We are at such a critical crisis in terms of public health and air quality that we need to try this.”
But Meyers, speaking for Councilwoman Dickens, expressed fears that the plan would have the opposite effect, saying that “increased traffic uptown could lead to higher asthma rates.” New York State Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell of the 69th Assembly District, which includes parts of Morningside Heights, agreed, saying congestion pricing “will reduce them [asthma rates] inside [the congestion zone] but increase them in the places outside.” Shepard countered these claims, saying, “One thing that you have to remember when you look at air pollution is that it is dynamic and moving. If you understand the nature of air and air quality, you will realize that decreasing pollution in midtown will clean up the air in [northern] Manhattan certainly, and in other locales.”
Under Bloomberg’s plan, “the money collected through congestion pricing would raise about $400 million every year” and would be used for mass transit expansion and improvements, according to a fact sheet on congestion pricing released by the mayor’s office. “We have a real crisis in mass transit, and we need to improve it to unload this burden. Hopefully, this [congestion pricing] will generate the resources towards that end,” Perkins said.
Many have expressed concerns that congestion pricing would overload already crowded transit systems, especially in Harlem, and agree on the need for expansion. “The idea that you can discourage one form of transportation without having an impact on the others is simply wrong,” O’Donnell said. “All of the solutions mean creating alternatives, which means you have to increase capacity.”
“A lot of additional capacity would be added, such as more trains more frequently, which is currently not near capacity,” Norvell said. He argued that while congestion pricing would discourage approximately 100,000 people from driving into Manhattan, this number makes up only two percent of transit ridership.
“The huge benefactors of congestion pricing are bus riders,” Norvell added. “We can add more buses, but they’ll be stuck in traffic otherwise. We need a strong traffic reduction strategy to make buses more reliable and fast.” Bus service, he said, can inexpensively make up for the increase in transit ridership brought about by congestion pricing.
“The communities that are suffering are suffering because of traffic,” Perkins said. “So when you talk about congestion pricing, you need to talk about it beginning with what’s healthy for the community. And what’s healthy for the community will translate into what’s healthy for the economy. A healthy economy begins with a healthy community.”
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/26970
Green City: Reaching critical mass
Fifteen years of free-wheelin'
By Ryn Stepanski
news@sfbg.com
GREEN CITY
Fifteen years ago this month, San Franciscans mobilized for the first Critical Mass, an unpermitted monthly bicycle parade and social protest that has subsequently been exported to cities around the world. The movement formed in the streets as the Commute Club, just a handful of bicyclists seizing their stretch of pavement together. Among them rode former bike messenger Jim Swanson, whom many credit with coining the name Critical Mass, a reference to the traffic-controlling power achieved when enough bicycles join a ride.
Two months into the project, Swanson watched Ted White's short film The Return of the Scorcher. The surreal footage of bicyclists in China fording intersections inspired Swanson: "When there was enough of them, they crossed and took over the road." Thus, in September 1992, the autonomous and leaderless collective known as Critical Mass was born, picking up momentum — while enduring an often rocky relationship with the city and its motorists — ever since.
On Sept. 28, around 6 p.m., thousands of bicyclists are expected to convene around Justin Hermann Plaza for the 15th anniversary ride, just as they do on the last Friday of every month. Each rider brings a unique cause and perspective to the ride. Swanson wheels out his 1965 blue Schwinn Tandem each month and makes it a regular date with his sweetheart and friends. Longtime rider Joel Pomerantz focuses on the political undertones of the event. "For me, the ride is about community. It's an opportunity for people to take over public space that is usually destructive to the community," he told the Guardian.
During Critical Mass, riders change the use of street space and establish bicycles as the dominant form of transportation, taking control of every intersection they encounter, at least for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes the mass to pass. Bicyclists in San Francisco have also attained critical mass in other ways, with more and more residents realizing the environmental, health, safety, and monetary benefits of trading the gas pedal for a pair of pedals. The 35-year-old San Francisco Bicycle Coalition now boasts a peak membership of 7,500, and the city has the highest per capita membership in the Thunderhead Alliance, a national conglomeration of cycling and walking advocates.
According to the Urban Transportation Caucus's 2007 report card, automobiles and trucks account for 50 percent of San Francisco's carbon emissions, a major cause of climate change and respiratory ailments. "Simply reducing the number of driving vehicles will be the biggest thing in reducing carbon emissions and improving people's health. Bicycling comes up as the most cost-effective way to reduce private vehicle trips," SFBC director Leah Shahum said. Some groups want to take big steps toward furthering that trend. For example, San Francisco Tomorrow is pushing a plan to ban private automobiles on Market Street. But for now the city is prevented by a court injunction from undertaking bike-friendly projects after a judge found procedural flaws in how the current Bicycle Plan was approved (see "Stationary Biking," 5/16/07).
Carla Laser, founder of the San Francisco Bicycle Ballet, said getting the plan back on track is also essential to minimizing bike-car conflicts: "The striping of bike lanes is an example of how the Bike Plan educates the public on how to share the streets. Drivers can clearly see that the city actually supports bikes on streets and is willing to give them a nod of space with the stripes. Every street is a bike street." That's especially true for Critical Mass, a situation that can cause tensions between motorists and cyclists and fuel a backlash toward bike riders seen as overreaching into the realm of automobiles. Yet Critical Mass remains more popular than ever, and it only seemed to grow larger a few months ago, when the San Francisco Chronicle publicized some motorist-cyclist clashes (see "Did Critical Mass Really Go Crazy?," SFBG Politics blog, www.sfbg.com, 4/4/07).
Yet as the event becomes a popular rolling party, some longtime massers have started openly wondering what's next for those looking to send a serious message about minimizing dependence on cars. As transportation activist and former SFBC executive director Dave Snyder told us, "I'm looking forward to the next public phenomenon in San Francisco that inspires a humane use of public space, as Critical Mass was to so many people."
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=4592&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=316&volume_num=41&issue_num=52
Fifteen years of free-wheelin'
By Ryn Stepanski
news@sfbg.com
GREEN CITY
Fifteen years ago this month, San Franciscans mobilized for the first Critical Mass, an unpermitted monthly bicycle parade and social protest that has subsequently been exported to cities around the world. The movement formed in the streets as the Commute Club, just a handful of bicyclists seizing their stretch of pavement together. Among them rode former bike messenger Jim Swanson, whom many credit with coining the name Critical Mass, a reference to the traffic-controlling power achieved when enough bicycles join a ride.
Two months into the project, Swanson watched Ted White's short film The Return of the Scorcher. The surreal footage of bicyclists in China fording intersections inspired Swanson: "When there was enough of them, they crossed and took over the road." Thus, in September 1992, the autonomous and leaderless collective known as Critical Mass was born, picking up momentum — while enduring an often rocky relationship with the city and its motorists — ever since.
On Sept. 28, around 6 p.m., thousands of bicyclists are expected to convene around Justin Hermann Plaza for the 15th anniversary ride, just as they do on the last Friday of every month. Each rider brings a unique cause and perspective to the ride. Swanson wheels out his 1965 blue Schwinn Tandem each month and makes it a regular date with his sweetheart and friends. Longtime rider Joel Pomerantz focuses on the political undertones of the event. "For me, the ride is about community. It's an opportunity for people to take over public space that is usually destructive to the community," he told the Guardian.
During Critical Mass, riders change the use of street space and establish bicycles as the dominant form of transportation, taking control of every intersection they encounter, at least for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes the mass to pass. Bicyclists in San Francisco have also attained critical mass in other ways, with more and more residents realizing the environmental, health, safety, and monetary benefits of trading the gas pedal for a pair of pedals. The 35-year-old San Francisco Bicycle Coalition now boasts a peak membership of 7,500, and the city has the highest per capita membership in the Thunderhead Alliance, a national conglomeration of cycling and walking advocates.
According to the Urban Transportation Caucus's 2007 report card, automobiles and trucks account for 50 percent of San Francisco's carbon emissions, a major cause of climate change and respiratory ailments. "Simply reducing the number of driving vehicles will be the biggest thing in reducing carbon emissions and improving people's health. Bicycling comes up as the most cost-effective way to reduce private vehicle trips," SFBC director Leah Shahum said. Some groups want to take big steps toward furthering that trend. For example, San Francisco Tomorrow is pushing a plan to ban private automobiles on Market Street. But for now the city is prevented by a court injunction from undertaking bike-friendly projects after a judge found procedural flaws in how the current Bicycle Plan was approved (see "Stationary Biking," 5/16/07).
Carla Laser, founder of the San Francisco Bicycle Ballet, said getting the plan back on track is also essential to minimizing bike-car conflicts: "The striping of bike lanes is an example of how the Bike Plan educates the public on how to share the streets. Drivers can clearly see that the city actually supports bikes on streets and is willing to give them a nod of space with the stripes. Every street is a bike street." That's especially true for Critical Mass, a situation that can cause tensions between motorists and cyclists and fuel a backlash toward bike riders seen as overreaching into the realm of automobiles. Yet Critical Mass remains more popular than ever, and it only seemed to grow larger a few months ago, when the San Francisco Chronicle publicized some motorist-cyclist clashes (see "Did Critical Mass Really Go Crazy?," SFBG Politics blog, www.sfbg.com, 4/4/07).
Yet as the event becomes a popular rolling party, some longtime massers have started openly wondering what's next for those looking to send a serious message about minimizing dependence on cars. As transportation activist and former SFBC executive director Dave Snyder told us, "I'm looking forward to the next public phenomenon in San Francisco that inspires a humane use of public space, as Critical Mass was to so many people."
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=4592&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=316&volume_num=41&issue_num=52
SMUD Purchases Wood Biomass Energy
Sacramento, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Board of Directors approved the extension of an 18-month contract with Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) for the purchase of renewable energy from a new wood biomass plant in Burlington, WA. The agreement will allow SMUD to buy 15 to 23 megawatts (MW) of round-the-clock baseload power at a competitive cost relative to other renewable energy projects through July 31, 2017.
The SMUD Board also approved a 10-year extension of a related transmission and exchange agreement with Seattle City Light. This agreement brings SMUD closer to its goal of getting 20 percent of its power supply from renewable energy sources by 2011. In 2006, SMUD's power mix was made up of over 13 percent qualifying renewable sources.
In addition to renewable power purchases SMUD owns approximately 39 MW of wind generation (with an additional 63 MW on-line by year's end) and 10.4 MW of solar power.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50073
Sacramento, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Board of Directors approved the extension of an 18-month contract with Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) for the purchase of renewable energy from a new wood biomass plant in Burlington, WA. The agreement will allow SMUD to buy 15 to 23 megawatts (MW) of round-the-clock baseload power at a competitive cost relative to other renewable energy projects through July 31, 2017.
The SMUD Board also approved a 10-year extension of a related transmission and exchange agreement with Seattle City Light. This agreement brings SMUD closer to its goal of getting 20 percent of its power supply from renewable energy sources by 2011. In 2006, SMUD's power mix was made up of over 13 percent qualifying renewable sources.
In addition to renewable power purchases SMUD owns approximately 39 MW of wind generation (with an additional 63 MW on-line by year's end) and 10.4 MW of solar power.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50073
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
It takes a city to limit greenhouse gases
By LISA STIFFLER
If you could give a rip about global warming and the pressure to do environmental good to stop it, the city of Seattle is going to drive you nuts. Steps for slowing climate change will confront you on the flip side of the No. 12 cheer cards waved by fans at the Seahawks game. They'll nudge you from posters hanging at the local Starbucks when you're grabbing a mocha to go. The friendly librarian might add a fluorescent light bulb to your stack of books to take home.
But if you're pumped up to do what you can to slow global warming -- strategizing the best bus routes and bumping down the thermostat -- you might embrace the city's new Seattle Climate Action Now campaign in all its manifestations. After the hoopla of vowing that Seattle will cut its greenhouse emissions on par with the Kyoto Protocol -- plus getting 672 U.S. cities to join the effort -- leaders here are trying to kick-start public involvement.
"Mayors and councils can't do this," Mayor Greg Nickels said at a news conference Friday. "It takes the entire community." Central to the campaign is a new Web site, seattlecan.org, a sort of clearinghouse for local and national climate change information.
The Web site has a calendar of global-warming-related events to which the public can make additions. After a short registration, there's a detailed survey for figuring out how much carbon dioxide you're producing each year, followed by goals and strategies for reducing emissions. There's a list of generic tips for cutting pollution -- checking your tire pressure, turning off idling vehicles, turning off unused lights. And there are links to resources for mass transit, finding energy-saving appliances, recycling and so on.
The site cost about $30,000 to produce and will be maintained by the city. Elected officials and climate change activists acknowledged that the global-warming issue is plagued with paralyzing messages of doom and gloom. They said it doesn't have to be that way.
"We're not just going to be worried," said K.C. Golden, policy director for Climate Solutions, a local non-profit group. "With Seattle Climate Action Now, we are going to be the solution."
Locally, global warming is expected to raise sea levels, gobbling up miles of shoreline, reduce the snowpack that supplies drinking water and increase forest fires.
Seattle leaders aren't the only ones taking action to reduce planetary warming. King County has its own lengthy plan for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and County Executive Ron Sims recently declared greenhouse gases pollutants that must be considered in environmental reviews for construction projects. Gov. Chris Gregoire joined the Western Climate Initiative in February, a coalition of states and Canadian provinces working to cut emissions.
Seattle leaders have vowed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Nickels created a "green ribbon commission" to come up with strategies for making those cuts. The question now is whether the public can be inspired by campaigns such as the one launched Friday to make the changes and sacrifices needed to reach the goals.
"This is a really big day," Steve Nicholas, director of Seattle's Office of Sustainability and Environment, said at the news conference. "A big day on our journey to becoming America's most climate-friendly city."
CURBING CLIMATE CHANGE
Check out the Seattle Climate Action Now Web site, seattlecan.org, for a global-warming events calendar, resources and greenhouse-gas emissions calculator.
Some of the climate change events happening Saturday:
Free compact fluorescent light bulbs will be given away at all Seattle public libraries from noon to 4 p.m.
The Columbia City Climate Action Now Bike Fair at Ferdinand Street and Rainier Avenue South from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. will provide information about bike safety, maintenance and routes.
The West Seattle Climate Action Now Conversation at Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, 4408 Delridge Way S.W., from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. will discuss climate solutions. There will be a biodiesel demonstration and used batteries and fluorescent light bulbs can be turned in for safe disposal.
The International District-Chinatown Climate Action Now Save Fair at Hing Hay Park, 423 Maynard Ave. S., from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. will have a biodiesel demonstration, booths on energy conservation and free compact fluorescent bulbs.
The Phinney-Greenwood Climate Action Now Fair at Greenwood Library, 8016 Greenwood Ave. N., from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., will present climate action resources.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332637_globalwarming22.html?source=mypi
By LISA STIFFLER
If you could give a rip about global warming and the pressure to do environmental good to stop it, the city of Seattle is going to drive you nuts. Steps for slowing climate change will confront you on the flip side of the No. 12 cheer cards waved by fans at the Seahawks game. They'll nudge you from posters hanging at the local Starbucks when you're grabbing a mocha to go. The friendly librarian might add a fluorescent light bulb to your stack of books to take home.
But if you're pumped up to do what you can to slow global warming -- strategizing the best bus routes and bumping down the thermostat -- you might embrace the city's new Seattle Climate Action Now campaign in all its manifestations. After the hoopla of vowing that Seattle will cut its greenhouse emissions on par with the Kyoto Protocol -- plus getting 672 U.S. cities to join the effort -- leaders here are trying to kick-start public involvement.
"Mayors and councils can't do this," Mayor Greg Nickels said at a news conference Friday. "It takes the entire community." Central to the campaign is a new Web site, seattlecan.org, a sort of clearinghouse for local and national climate change information.
The Web site has a calendar of global-warming-related events to which the public can make additions. After a short registration, there's a detailed survey for figuring out how much carbon dioxide you're producing each year, followed by goals and strategies for reducing emissions. There's a list of generic tips for cutting pollution -- checking your tire pressure, turning off idling vehicles, turning off unused lights. And there are links to resources for mass transit, finding energy-saving appliances, recycling and so on.
The site cost about $30,000 to produce and will be maintained by the city. Elected officials and climate change activists acknowledged that the global-warming issue is plagued with paralyzing messages of doom and gloom. They said it doesn't have to be that way.
"We're not just going to be worried," said K.C. Golden, policy director for Climate Solutions, a local non-profit group. "With Seattle Climate Action Now, we are going to be the solution."
Locally, global warming is expected to raise sea levels, gobbling up miles of shoreline, reduce the snowpack that supplies drinking water and increase forest fires.
Seattle leaders aren't the only ones taking action to reduce planetary warming. King County has its own lengthy plan for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and County Executive Ron Sims recently declared greenhouse gases pollutants that must be considered in environmental reviews for construction projects. Gov. Chris Gregoire joined the Western Climate Initiative in February, a coalition of states and Canadian provinces working to cut emissions.
Seattle leaders have vowed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Nickels created a "green ribbon commission" to come up with strategies for making those cuts. The question now is whether the public can be inspired by campaigns such as the one launched Friday to make the changes and sacrifices needed to reach the goals.
"This is a really big day," Steve Nicholas, director of Seattle's Office of Sustainability and Environment, said at the news conference. "A big day on our journey to becoming America's most climate-friendly city."
CURBING CLIMATE CHANGE
Check out the Seattle Climate Action Now Web site, seattlecan.org, for a global-warming events calendar, resources and greenhouse-gas emissions calculator.
Some of the climate change events happening Saturday:
Free compact fluorescent light bulbs will be given away at all Seattle public libraries from noon to 4 p.m.
The Columbia City Climate Action Now Bike Fair at Ferdinand Street and Rainier Avenue South from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. will provide information about bike safety, maintenance and routes.
The West Seattle Climate Action Now Conversation at Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, 4408 Delridge Way S.W., from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. will discuss climate solutions. There will be a biodiesel demonstration and used batteries and fluorescent light bulbs can be turned in for safe disposal.
The International District-Chinatown Climate Action Now Save Fair at Hing Hay Park, 423 Maynard Ave. S., from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. will have a biodiesel demonstration, booths on energy conservation and free compact fluorescent bulbs.
The Phinney-Greenwood Climate Action Now Fair at Greenwood Library, 8016 Greenwood Ave. N., from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., will present climate action resources.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332637_globalwarming22.html?source=mypi
School lights burn bright at night
by Advance Staff Writer
Sunday September 23, 2007, 11:13 AM
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Months after Mayor Michael Bloomberg vowed to cut city government's energy use by 30 percent over the next decade, it appears that most Staten Island schools didn't get the memo. A whopping 80 percent of public schools from Tompkinsville to Tottenville leave some of their lights on between midnight and 6 a.m., making them stand out like lighted Christmas trees among darkened homes in the neighborhoods around them, an Advance investigation has found. A few schools even left several classrooms illuminated overnight, potentially costing the city thousands of dollars in electricity bills every year.
The findings fly in the face of Bloomberg's ambitious environmental initiative PlaNYC 2030, unveiled on Earth Day April 20, a major component of which calls for the city to reduce its carbon footprint by limiting harmful emissions created when producing energy. Some school custodians told the Advance lights are left on overnight for safety reasons, for instance if anyone needs to access the school after-hours. But the Department of Education's policy is to turn off all lights unless overnight work is being done at individual schools, according to spokeswoman Marge Feinberg. DOE officials will look into why lights are left on at so many schools here, she said, adding that the DOE's policy does not specify that lights be left on for safety purposes.
Barbara Warren of Staten Island Citizens for Clean Air, who is closely monitoring implementation of PlaNYC as it relates to energy conservation, said the city needs to crack down on unnecessary use of electricity. "I think there's a real gap between what the plan says and what is actually being carried out," she said. When the Advance recently spent a night driving from school to school, 44 of 55 were illuminated with lights left on in either stairwells, classrooms or both -- in some cases, entire floors were lit up. (There are 65 public school facilities on Staten Island. Private schools do not have to adhere to the city policy.)
CALL FOR POINT PERSON
Ms. Warren said until Bloomberg appoints an "energy czar" -- who would be responsible for overseeing implementation of energy initiatives in each city agency -- it will be tough to reduce energy demand and prevent the construction of additional power sources. "You have to have somebody accountable on the ground ... or it doesn't happen," she said. "We really need to devote a lot of energy and [have] a lot of funds and personnel devoted to getting the energy-efficiency and conservation [goals] implemented so we can avoid building power plants."
Mayoral spokesman John Gallagher said that city agencies have begun to take steps toward reaching the mayor's goals in PlaNYC, such as swapping incandescent bulbs for energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs in municipal buildings, including schools. PlaNYC calls for creating a New York City Energy Efficiency Authority (NYCEEA), responsible for reaching the city's demand-reduction targets, and the city is pursuing state approval to do so. "The mayor has set the most ambitious target of any municipality in the nation for retrofitting city-owned buildings to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over the next decade," Gallagher said. He referred specific questions about schools' energy use to the DOE.
Ms. Feinberg said the agency would look at each school to find out why lights were left on. She said reasons could include overnight capital work, emergency repairs or general cleaning operations. "We are going to check out those schools," said Ms. Feinberg, noting that if no work is being done, "then lights should be off. We'll be checking because we want to see where the lights were on." Nobody could be seen working in the 44 schools where lights were left on.
SAFETY CONCERNS
One North Shore custodian said that, while some schools have overnight work taking place, others leave lights on for safety purposes in the event staff needs to go into a school building during off-hours. "If the alarm goes off at 3 in the morning, for security reasons, you do not want to go into a pitch-black school," said the janitor, who requested anonymity. He explained that many lights are hooked up to a circuit breaker instead of individual light switches. "Mainly it's a security issue, it's not a laziness issue." The custodian also said that lights can deter vandals or thieves from breaking into schools.
But "I doubt you're going to fool anybody into thinking somebody's home at school at night," said Rob Moore, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York. "It's a school, you know." Moore, whose agency has hailed the initiatives in PlaNYC, said it was "surprising" to learn that so many schools leave lights on overnight. "I would certainly encourage the mayor -- and not just the mayor but the governor and all who report to them -- to do simple things like ... turning the lights off," Moore said. "One of the easiest ways of saving energy and saving taxpayer dollars is to turn off the lights when you leave."
City Councilman Michael McMahon (D-North Shore) agreed. "Certainly given the enormous amount of facilities that the DOE oversees, they should have a much tighter policy," McMahon said, adding that the City Council should work with DOE to come up with "more rigid" regulations. "There's no question it can be managed better by the DOE. That's an area the city can save energy and taxpayer dollars."
Glenn Nyback covers environmental news for the Advance. He may be reached at nyback@siadvance.com.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/09/school_lights_burn_bright_at_n.html
by Advance Staff Writer
Sunday September 23, 2007, 11:13 AM
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Months after Mayor Michael Bloomberg vowed to cut city government's energy use by 30 percent over the next decade, it appears that most Staten Island schools didn't get the memo. A whopping 80 percent of public schools from Tompkinsville to Tottenville leave some of their lights on between midnight and 6 a.m., making them stand out like lighted Christmas trees among darkened homes in the neighborhoods around them, an Advance investigation has found. A few schools even left several classrooms illuminated overnight, potentially costing the city thousands of dollars in electricity bills every year.
The findings fly in the face of Bloomberg's ambitious environmental initiative PlaNYC 2030, unveiled on Earth Day April 20, a major component of which calls for the city to reduce its carbon footprint by limiting harmful emissions created when producing energy. Some school custodians told the Advance lights are left on overnight for safety reasons, for instance if anyone needs to access the school after-hours. But the Department of Education's policy is to turn off all lights unless overnight work is being done at individual schools, according to spokeswoman Marge Feinberg. DOE officials will look into why lights are left on at so many schools here, she said, adding that the DOE's policy does not specify that lights be left on for safety purposes.
Barbara Warren of Staten Island Citizens for Clean Air, who is closely monitoring implementation of PlaNYC as it relates to energy conservation, said the city needs to crack down on unnecessary use of electricity. "I think there's a real gap between what the plan says and what is actually being carried out," she said. When the Advance recently spent a night driving from school to school, 44 of 55 were illuminated with lights left on in either stairwells, classrooms or both -- in some cases, entire floors were lit up. (There are 65 public school facilities on Staten Island. Private schools do not have to adhere to the city policy.)
CALL FOR POINT PERSON
Ms. Warren said until Bloomberg appoints an "energy czar" -- who would be responsible for overseeing implementation of energy initiatives in each city agency -- it will be tough to reduce energy demand and prevent the construction of additional power sources. "You have to have somebody accountable on the ground ... or it doesn't happen," she said. "We really need to devote a lot of energy and [have] a lot of funds and personnel devoted to getting the energy-efficiency and conservation [goals] implemented so we can avoid building power plants."
Mayoral spokesman John Gallagher said that city agencies have begun to take steps toward reaching the mayor's goals in PlaNYC, such as swapping incandescent bulbs for energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs in municipal buildings, including schools. PlaNYC calls for creating a New York City Energy Efficiency Authority (NYCEEA), responsible for reaching the city's demand-reduction targets, and the city is pursuing state approval to do so. "The mayor has set the most ambitious target of any municipality in the nation for retrofitting city-owned buildings to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over the next decade," Gallagher said. He referred specific questions about schools' energy use to the DOE.
Ms. Feinberg said the agency would look at each school to find out why lights were left on. She said reasons could include overnight capital work, emergency repairs or general cleaning operations. "We are going to check out those schools," said Ms. Feinberg, noting that if no work is being done, "then lights should be off. We'll be checking because we want to see where the lights were on." Nobody could be seen working in the 44 schools where lights were left on.
SAFETY CONCERNS
One North Shore custodian said that, while some schools have overnight work taking place, others leave lights on for safety purposes in the event staff needs to go into a school building during off-hours. "If the alarm goes off at 3 in the morning, for security reasons, you do not want to go into a pitch-black school," said the janitor, who requested anonymity. He explained that many lights are hooked up to a circuit breaker instead of individual light switches. "Mainly it's a security issue, it's not a laziness issue." The custodian also said that lights can deter vandals or thieves from breaking into schools.
But "I doubt you're going to fool anybody into thinking somebody's home at school at night," said Rob Moore, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York. "It's a school, you know." Moore, whose agency has hailed the initiatives in PlaNYC, said it was "surprising" to learn that so many schools leave lights on overnight. "I would certainly encourage the mayor -- and not just the mayor but the governor and all who report to them -- to do simple things like ... turning the lights off," Moore said. "One of the easiest ways of saving energy and saving taxpayer dollars is to turn off the lights when you leave."
City Councilman Michael McMahon (D-North Shore) agreed. "Certainly given the enormous amount of facilities that the DOE oversees, they should have a much tighter policy," McMahon said, adding that the City Council should work with DOE to come up with "more rigid" regulations. "There's no question it can be managed better by the DOE. That's an area the city can save energy and taxpayer dollars."
Glenn Nyback covers environmental news for the Advance. He may be reached at nyback@siadvance.com.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/09/school_lights_burn_bright_at_n.html
Cross Hudson Cable Seeks Restoration in NYISO Queue
LINDEN, N.J., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Cross Hudson Corporation and In- City I, LLC (CHC) filed a petition September 21, 2007 for rehearing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking a rehearing, clarification and restoration of the project placement in the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) queue related to the Commission''s August 22, 2007 order in Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC v. New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 120 FERC 61,179 (2007) (August 22 Order) (Docket No. EL07-70- 000).
"We believe that the law and the facts as presented by CHC will enable FERC to restore the project to appropriate placement in the NYISO interconnection queue," stated Paul Rich, Chief Development Officer of CCH Holdings Group, LLC, parent company of Cross Hudson Corporation and In-City, I LLC. As outlined in today''s petition, CHC asserts that the Commission erred when it ordered the Cross Hudson project removed from position 93 in the NYISO interconnection queue based on the Commission''s rejection of the NYISO''s interpretation and implementation of section 3.6 of the NYISO open-access transmission tariff (OATT).
"Further," Rich continued, "CHC is supported by the NYISO itself who on July 5, 2007, answered and urged FERC to deny Hudson Transmission Partner''s complaint which resulted in the August Order." "In its answer, the NYISO explained that it had maintained Cross Hudson''s queue position because [Cross Hudson] has at all times satisfied the requirements of the NYISO''s tariffs," explained Rich.
At the time of the August 22 Order and NYISO''s subsequent removal of the project from the interconnection queue, Cross Hudson was prepared to begin construction as early as the fourth quarter of 2007. If the NYISO and Cross Hudson are successful on rehearing, Cross Hudson is still prepared to begin construction in the first quarter of 2008.
Mr. Rich, who recently joined CCH Holdings Group, and formerly was Chief Operating Officer of Neptune Regional Transmission System LLC states, "I am very pleased to have joined the Cross Hudson Project, which is the project best positioned to provide new capacity to New York City given its fully permitted status."
CCH Holdings Group, LLC acquired Cross Hudson Corporation and In-City I, LLC and its permitted Cross Hudson Project from PSEG Power LLC in 2006. CHC proceeded with NYISO interconnection approval and development activities in order to initiate construction in late 2007, with a proposed completion date in late 2009. This is the only proposed power project for the New York City area that has the ability to be in service to meet the near term power demands projected by PlaNYC 2030.
The Cross Hudson Project, a proposed 345 KV generator lead from New Jersey to New York City, has been under development since 2001. The proposed generator lead originates in Ridgefield, New Jersey at the Bergen Unit 2 site, owned by PSEG Power LLC. The feed would terminate at the Consolidated Edison Company''s substation at West 49th Street in Manhattan, supplying electricity to the New York City market and particularly Manhattan.
The line will be installed on privately acquired right of way within New Jersey. It will run under the bed of the Hudson River, and make landfall in Manhattan at Pier 94. It will then run underground under lands owned by the City and State of New York and beneath 12th Avenue into the ConEd W.49th Street substation. The line will be approximately eight miles in length from the Bergen plant to West 49th Street, and will be underground for its entire distance. The Project has obtained all of its required key permits including a NYS Public Service Commission Article VII Certificate (2003, amended 2004), and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act section 10 permit (2004). In addition, the Cross Hudson project has held position 93 in the 2006 Class Year at the New York System Operator (NYISO), which would have enabled it to receive an Interconnection Agreement from the NYISO this year for the interconnection at West 49th Street.
A copy of the petition may be viewed at the FERC web site www.ferc.gov under documents and filings, or may be provided upon request.
Source: CCH Holdings Group, LLC; Cross Hudson Corporation and In-City I, LLC
LINDEN, N.J., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Cross Hudson Corporation and In- City I, LLC (CHC) filed a petition September 21, 2007 for rehearing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking a rehearing, clarification and restoration of the project placement in the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) queue related to the Commission''s August 22, 2007 order in Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC v. New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 120 FERC 61,179 (2007) (August 22 Order) (Docket No. EL07-70- 000).
"We believe that the law and the facts as presented by CHC will enable FERC to restore the project to appropriate placement in the NYISO interconnection queue," stated Paul Rich, Chief Development Officer of CCH Holdings Group, LLC, parent company of Cross Hudson Corporation and In-City, I LLC. As outlined in today''s petition, CHC asserts that the Commission erred when it ordered the Cross Hudson project removed from position 93 in the NYISO interconnection queue based on the Commission''s rejection of the NYISO''s interpretation and implementation of section 3.6 of the NYISO open-access transmission tariff (OATT).
"Further," Rich continued, "CHC is supported by the NYISO itself who on July 5, 2007, answered and urged FERC to deny Hudson Transmission Partner''s complaint which resulted in the August Order." "In its answer, the NYISO explained that it had maintained Cross Hudson''s queue position because [Cross Hudson] has at all times satisfied the requirements of the NYISO''s tariffs," explained Rich.
At the time of the August 22 Order and NYISO''s subsequent removal of the project from the interconnection queue, Cross Hudson was prepared to begin construction as early as the fourth quarter of 2007. If the NYISO and Cross Hudson are successful on rehearing, Cross Hudson is still prepared to begin construction in the first quarter of 2008.
Mr. Rich, who recently joined CCH Holdings Group, and formerly was Chief Operating Officer of Neptune Regional Transmission System LLC states, "I am very pleased to have joined the Cross Hudson Project, which is the project best positioned to provide new capacity to New York City given its fully permitted status."
CCH Holdings Group, LLC acquired Cross Hudson Corporation and In-City I, LLC and its permitted Cross Hudson Project from PSEG Power LLC in 2006. CHC proceeded with NYISO interconnection approval and development activities in order to initiate construction in late 2007, with a proposed completion date in late 2009. This is the only proposed power project for the New York City area that has the ability to be in service to meet the near term power demands projected by PlaNYC 2030.
The Cross Hudson Project, a proposed 345 KV generator lead from New Jersey to New York City, has been under development since 2001. The proposed generator lead originates in Ridgefield, New Jersey at the Bergen Unit 2 site, owned by PSEG Power LLC. The feed would terminate at the Consolidated Edison Company''s substation at West 49th Street in Manhattan, supplying electricity to the New York City market and particularly Manhattan.
The line will be installed on privately acquired right of way within New Jersey. It will run under the bed of the Hudson River, and make landfall in Manhattan at Pier 94. It will then run underground under lands owned by the City and State of New York and beneath 12th Avenue into the ConEd W.49th Street substation. The line will be approximately eight miles in length from the Bergen plant to West 49th Street, and will be underground for its entire distance. The Project has obtained all of its required key permits including a NYS Public Service Commission Article VII Certificate (2003, amended 2004), and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act section 10 permit (2004). In addition, the Cross Hudson project has held position 93 in the 2006 Class Year at the New York System Operator (NYISO), which would have enabled it to receive an Interconnection Agreement from the NYISO this year for the interconnection at West 49th Street.
A copy of the petition may be viewed at the FERC web site www.ferc.gov under documents and filings, or may be provided upon request.
Source: CCH Holdings Group, LLC; Cross Hudson Corporation and In-City I, LLC
Bund blackout sends powerful signal
www.chinaview.cn
2007-09-24
BEIJING, Sept. 24 -- Shanghai's Bund lost its dazzling shine for half an hour Sunday night when all landscape lighting outside the historical buildings went dark. But it wasn't an accident - the lights were switched off by state energy authorities to remind people what will happen if they don't save energy as a matter of course.
The message was spread across eight cities in China, including Beijing, Harbin, Xi'an, Nanjing, Wuhan, Chongqing and Shenzhen. All turned off landscape lighting at scenic spots at 8 pm for 30 minutes. In Shanghai, nearly 100 buildings along the Huangpu River had their lights turned off. The amount of electricity saved this way was not big - estimated to be around 1,400 kilowatt-hours and worth about 1,200 yuan (US$158).
"I felt a big loss when all the lights were turned off as the buildings disappeared in the darkness," said Zhou Mengdi, a 15-year-old senior high school girl who is a member of her school's energy conservation association. Lighting along the Bund was turned off between 2003 and 2005, when the city was in the middle of a severe power shortage.
"This is just to let the public experience the impact of living without power and improve their energy-saving awareness," said Lan Yujun, secretary general of the city's energy conservation association. In total the city has around 20,000 kilowatts of landscape lighting, half of which is run by the landscape lighting management center.
The city plans to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent per unit of gross domestic product compared with consumption in 2005, when it used energy equivalent to 1.03 tons of coal for generation of every 100,000 yuan in GDP.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/24/content_6781170.htm
www.chinaview.cn
2007-09-24
BEIJING, Sept. 24 -- Shanghai's Bund lost its dazzling shine for half an hour Sunday night when all landscape lighting outside the historical buildings went dark. But it wasn't an accident - the lights were switched off by state energy authorities to remind people what will happen if they don't save energy as a matter of course.
The message was spread across eight cities in China, including Beijing, Harbin, Xi'an, Nanjing, Wuhan, Chongqing and Shenzhen. All turned off landscape lighting at scenic spots at 8 pm for 30 minutes. In Shanghai, nearly 100 buildings along the Huangpu River had their lights turned off. The amount of electricity saved this way was not big - estimated to be around 1,400 kilowatt-hours and worth about 1,200 yuan (US$158).
"I felt a big loss when all the lights were turned off as the buildings disappeared in the darkness," said Zhou Mengdi, a 15-year-old senior high school girl who is a member of her school's energy conservation association. Lighting along the Bund was turned off between 2003 and 2005, when the city was in the middle of a severe power shortage.
"This is just to let the public experience the impact of living without power and improve their energy-saving awareness," said Lan Yujun, secretary general of the city's energy conservation association. In total the city has around 20,000 kilowatts of landscape lighting, half of which is run by the landscape lighting management center.
The city plans to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent per unit of gross domestic product compared with consumption in 2005, when it used energy equivalent to 1.03 tons of coal for generation of every 100,000 yuan in GDP.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/24/content_6781170.htm
Friday, September 21, 2007
How Clean (or Dirty) Is Our Air?
by Rich Kassel
September 2007
During the spring, buried in the thickets of the debate over congestion pricing, was a great nugget in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030. Deep in the document was a promise: if PlaNYC 2030 was implemented, New York City would become the “cleanest big city in America.”
That got me thinking. How clean is the air in New York City?
The short answer is that the nation’s air is cleaner than it’s been in decades, and so is New York’s. But New York City air is still polluted enough to send thousands of people to emergency rooms every summer and to send some of those people to early graves every year.
The longer answer is more complicated, and it goes like this: Since 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyhas set standards for the maximum amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe. In a city like New York, ozone (a principal ingredient of smog) and particulate matter (or soot) are the key pollutants—and the city has never met EPA’s standards for either pollutant. In each case, we are in the second-worst category (Los Angeles tops the "most polluted list" for both smog and soot). By this measure, the city seems to be in pretty bad pollution shape—especially because many environmental groups think that the current EPA standards are too weak.
Soot particles are the biggest pollution concern. A decade ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council (where I worked then, and now) estimated that 64,000 Americans died prematurely every year at then-current levels of particulate air pollution. More than 4,000 people of those premature deaths were in the New York metropolitan region.
In New York, diesel engines have long been at the heart of our local soot problem. When walking up Madison Avenue, most of the soot we breathe comes from a relatively small number of diesel engines—buses, trucks, and construction equipment. In more residential neighborhoods, home heating oil is diesel’s close—and even dirtier—cousin.
Sources of Particulate Soot on Madison Avenue
Diesel (and home heating oil) soot is really toxic stuff. If it’s not effectively filtered in the tailpipe, typical diesel exhaust contains dozens of cancer-causing chemicals. This toxic soup has been found to be at least a probable or likely human carcinogen by many of the world’s leading public health agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and regulators in Germany, California and elsewhere.
Luckily, diesel soot pollution is a fixable problem. As of this year, all new diesel truck and bus engines are equipped with filters that remove more than 90 percent of this soot. And, NYC Transit buses have used these filters effectively for several years now, reducing their fleet-wide emissions by more than 95 percent since 1995. But most trucks, buses, and construction equipment don't have these filters.
So, in 2005, the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force revisited the soot problem, and focused on the specific problem of diesel soot. The task force estimated that people in Manhattan inhale enough toxic soot particles to create a lifetime cancer risk that is more than 3,200 times EPA’s so-called “acceptable” cancer risk. It gets even worse: According to the task force, more than 40,000 asthma attacks and almost 1,800 premature deaths were attributable to diesel soot pollution in neighborhoods throughout the city in 1999. That’s why the American Lung Association recently gave the City an “F” for its particulate soot levels.
But is the air really so horrible? As I write, the sky outside my window is bright blue. My daily “EnviroFlash” email from EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation tells me that today’s pollution levels are “good” for both particles and ozone.
OK, I know better: EPA and environmental conservation department give a regional estimate. That estimate tells me nothing about local conditions. Recent studies show that diesel soot emissions along roadways create corridors of increased pollution, which leads to higher health impacts. Perhaps the most famous example can be found in northern Manhattan: With five Metropolitan Transit Authority bus depots and several busy north-south truck routes, Harlem and Washington Heights have higher air pollution levels—and much higher asthma rates—than their southern neighborhoods.
All of this underscores two important themes. First, it is important to acknowledge that we’ve made significant progress in reducing many sources of air pollution over the years, and our air is cleaner as a result. But, second, it is equally important to understand the job isn’t finished—we still fail to meet EPA’s health standards for ozone and particulate soot, and we need to create new ways to address the remaining sources of air pollution that seem to be pocketed in certain areas of the city.
Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030 strives to ensure that “every New Yorker” should breathe the cleanest air of any big city in America. We’re not there yet. Next month, I’ll dive into the plan and explore whether the plan will us meet his goal.
Rich Kassel is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), where he focuses on urban air pollution and transportation issues. He also chairs the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a regional transportation advocacy organization, and is on the boards of the New York League of Conservation Voters and Transportation Alternatives.
by Rich Kassel
September 2007
During the spring, buried in the thickets of the debate over congestion pricing, was a great nugget in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030. Deep in the document was a promise: if PlaNYC 2030 was implemented, New York City would become the “cleanest big city in America.”
That got me thinking. How clean is the air in New York City?
The short answer is that the nation’s air is cleaner than it’s been in decades, and so is New York’s. But New York City air is still polluted enough to send thousands of people to emergency rooms every summer and to send some of those people to early graves every year.
The longer answer is more complicated, and it goes like this: Since 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyhas set standards for the maximum amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe. In a city like New York, ozone (a principal ingredient of smog) and particulate matter (or soot) are the key pollutants—and the city has never met EPA’s standards for either pollutant. In each case, we are in the second-worst category (Los Angeles tops the "most polluted list" for both smog and soot). By this measure, the city seems to be in pretty bad pollution shape—especially because many environmental groups think that the current EPA standards are too weak.
Soot particles are the biggest pollution concern. A decade ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council (where I worked then, and now) estimated that 64,000 Americans died prematurely every year at then-current levels of particulate air pollution. More than 4,000 people of those premature deaths were in the New York metropolitan region.
In New York, diesel engines have long been at the heart of our local soot problem. When walking up Madison Avenue, most of the soot we breathe comes from a relatively small number of diesel engines—buses, trucks, and construction equipment. In more residential neighborhoods, home heating oil is diesel’s close—and even dirtier—cousin.
Sources of Particulate Soot on Madison Avenue
Diesel (and home heating oil) soot is really toxic stuff. If it’s not effectively filtered in the tailpipe, typical diesel exhaust contains dozens of cancer-causing chemicals. This toxic soup has been found to be at least a probable or likely human carcinogen by many of the world’s leading public health agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and regulators in Germany, California and elsewhere.
Luckily, diesel soot pollution is a fixable problem. As of this year, all new diesel truck and bus engines are equipped with filters that remove more than 90 percent of this soot. And, NYC Transit buses have used these filters effectively for several years now, reducing their fleet-wide emissions by more than 95 percent since 1995. But most trucks, buses, and construction equipment don't have these filters.
So, in 2005, the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force revisited the soot problem, and focused on the specific problem of diesel soot. The task force estimated that people in Manhattan inhale enough toxic soot particles to create a lifetime cancer risk that is more than 3,200 times EPA’s so-called “acceptable” cancer risk. It gets even worse: According to the task force, more than 40,000 asthma attacks and almost 1,800 premature deaths were attributable to diesel soot pollution in neighborhoods throughout the city in 1999. That’s why the American Lung Association recently gave the City an “F” for its particulate soot levels.
But is the air really so horrible? As I write, the sky outside my window is bright blue. My daily “EnviroFlash” email from EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation tells me that today’s pollution levels are “good” for both particles and ozone.
OK, I know better: EPA and environmental conservation department give a regional estimate. That estimate tells me nothing about local conditions. Recent studies show that diesel soot emissions along roadways create corridors of increased pollution, which leads to higher health impacts. Perhaps the most famous example can be found in northern Manhattan: With five Metropolitan Transit Authority bus depots and several busy north-south truck routes, Harlem and Washington Heights have higher air pollution levels—and much higher asthma rates—than their southern neighborhoods.
All of this underscores two important themes. First, it is important to acknowledge that we’ve made significant progress in reducing many sources of air pollution over the years, and our air is cleaner as a result. But, second, it is equally important to understand the job isn’t finished—we still fail to meet EPA’s health standards for ozone and particulate soot, and we need to create new ways to address the remaining sources of air pollution that seem to be pocketed in certain areas of the city.
Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030 strives to ensure that “every New Yorker” should breathe the cleanest air of any big city in America. We’re not there yet. Next month, I’ll dive into the plan and explore whether the plan will us meet his goal.
Rich Kassel is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), where he focuses on urban air pollution and transportation issues. He also chairs the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a regional transportation advocacy organization, and is on the boards of the New York League of Conservation Voters and Transportation Alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)