[Sustain] notes on 4/26/07 Sustainability WG meeting

[Eric Brooks]

Two technical corrections in Community Choice notes:

The project will replace 360 megawatts of generation with renewables and 
efficiency in its first three years, and -then- after a full decade in 
operation the project will build further renewables and efficiency such 
that the City will then run on 51% renewable electricity (by about 2020).
and
The current Community Choice project plan will build large scale 
distributed generation in San Francisco. We need to make sure that this 
model holds true for the other California Community Choice cities.

cheers

Eric

done7777 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> San Francisco Green Party Sustainability Working Group Meeting 4/26/07
>  
> Agenda: I. CCA; II. Nuclear update; III. LNG, Biofuels; IV. CT's, 
> transbay line; V. Greenwashing discussion; VI. Plenary presentation
>  
> I.                   CCA- Legislation has finally been introduced to 
> SFBOS on 4/17.  We still expect a tough struggle with the governance 
> issue.  SFPUC wants to oversee the program completely.  CCA coalition 
> wants the board of supervisors to have oversight through creation of a 
> special oversight board, which should operate at least through the 
> initial contractor selection process.  Legislation goes before the 
> Budget and Finance Committee in May.  If it is not passed in May, it 
> could set back the effort by another year.
>  
> Discussion:
>  
>
>     * Renewable energy will be a product of 2001 legislation enabling
>       bonding for renewables projects
>     * Goal of legislation will still be to meet 51% of our energy
>       needs- 360 MW, through renewables and conservation
>     * SFPUC's plan is to construct much of the renewable energy
>       infrastructure outside the city.  This will still leave the city
>       dependent upon PG&E's lines to bring and distribute the power. 
>       We need to see if this can be addressed through more aggressive
>       distributed energy legislation that will enable more renewable
>       energy construction within the city.
>
>  
> II. Nuclear Update- Don reported on recent efforts by nuclear industry 
> to reassert itself in California.  AB 718 was introduced recently to 
> repeal the CA ban on building new nuclear facilities until the nuclear 
> waste can be managed properly.  An April 1 meeting brought together 
> many safe energy activists from across the state who mobilized against 
> the legislation.    It was killed in the Natural Resources committee, 
> chaired by Lonnie Hancock.
>  
> Discussion:
>  
>
>     * The legislation would have enabled Fresno city administration to
>       move ahead with plans to builds a nuke.
>     * This is a first assault.  The nuclear industry has been
>       agitating to get nuclear power accepted as a solution to
>       greenhouse gas emissions. 
>     * It is interesting to note how many local groups there are
>       working on nuclear and other safe energy issues locally in
>       communities all over the world. 
>     * Nuclear is considered a holy grail of modern technology in
>       developing countries, and nuclear promoters from the US, Japan,
>       Russia and France are using this to try to sell the technology
>       in India. South Korea, Iran, South Africa and other places.
>     * They call these "safe reactors", even though the designs being
>       promoted are still the same designs- boiling water reactors- as
>       make up the current infrastructure.
>
>  
> III.             LNG, Biofuels
> A.. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities have been stopped, for the 
> time being, by the CA State Lands Commission.  Groups in Ventura and 
> Malibu have packed hearings and agitated against the idea.  State 
> Water Quality Control Board and Governor Schwarzenegger are due to 
> state their positions soon.
> B. Berkeley will soon open the bay area's first biofuels filling 
> station.  This trend needs to be watched, in line with our concerns 
> about biofuels (see below)
>  
> IV.             CT's, Williams settlement-  The city is moving along 
> with its plans to site 4 combustion turbine electric generators.  One 
> has been sited at the airport, and three are slated to go in to 
> southwest SF, near Potrero Hill along the bay.  The turbines came in 
> payment of a settlement to California by Williams Gas, which gouged 
> gas prices in CA during the 2000-01 energy crisis.  If emplaced, the 
> turbines will assure the purchase of many millions of dollars worth of 
> gas from Williams to run the generators.  PG&E has announced its 
> partnership with Williams to provide gas in its service area.  
> Cal-ISO, the state agency that oversees the state's energy needs are 
> met has mandated the siting to assure energy security.  They are known 
> for overestimating power needs, and they seem to embrace a supply-side 
> ethic.
>  
> Discussion:
>  
>
>     * There are many reasons to oppose these sitings.  While the
>       turbines run somewhat cleaner than traditional generators, they
>       emit a fine particulate that can be drawn deeper in to lungs and
>       cause severe problems over time. 
>     * Placement of the turbines, coupled with bringing power up the
>       peninsula through the Jefferson-Martin line, and a proposed line
>       under the bay to bring power from Pittsburg, CA can severely
>       undermine efforts to employ conservation and renewable energy
>       projects as proposed in the CCA.
>     * While the turbines are designed only to be "peakers", and run
>       only during peak need, the likelihood is that they will run as
>       much as they are allowed to by law.
>     * There is also a good chance that the city or a private provider
>       of energy will want to take advantage of energy markets, and
>       export power from SF when inland temperatures are high and the
>       city is (usually) cool.
>     * Don will work to write a resolution to take to the general
>       meeting opposing the CT's and the transbay underwater line from
>       Pittsburg.
>
>  
> V.                Greenwashing-  Green is cool, these days, and 
> corporations are tripping all over themselves to dawn the green 
> mantle, not least of which our own PG&E.  PG&E has sponsored its 
> "Green Is" campaign in the city and hosted some TV ads featuring the 
> obnoxious, hyperactive child of a long suffering PG&E employee running 
> around singing the praises of sun, water, and wind.
>  
> Discussion:
>  
>
>     * There are some spurious ideas being passed as "green", including
>       nuclear power, "clean coal" and carbon sequestration, biofuels,
>       bioplastics, carbon trading, and others.
>     * Concerns were raised about how efficiency and conservation gains
>       might be used to ramp up production and so maintain current
>       pollution output
>
>  
> VI.             Plenary presentation- We have been asked to produce a 
> presentation for the upcoming plenary the end of May.  It was decided 
> to keep it simple and focus on biofuels, since there seems to be a 
> great deal of misunderstanding of this technology among Greens 
> compared to others. 
>  
> Discussion:
>  
> ·         Jeannie will ask David Fridley if he can make a 
> presentation.  If he is able and willing, the event will be his 
> presentation, which he can tailor to any length. 
> ·         If he is not able, we will constitute a panel, made up 
> largely of members of our working group.
> ·         Eric will clarify the exact date, and time allotment
> ·         Don is working on a flyer giving an overview of some of the 
> bad ideas being painted green, i.e.: nuclear power, "clean coal" and 
> carbon sequestration, biofuels, bioplastics, carbon trading, and others.
> ·         Working title of the presentation: "Beware the 
> Green/Industrial Complex"
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sustainability mailing list
> Sustainability at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20070503/7a1eb0ca/attachment.htm