SB50: Negative Impact for Climate Change Goals

via email – (download doc file SB50 January 2020)

SB-50 Negative impact for Climate Change goals and Mayor Garcetti’s “Green New Deal” for the City of Los Angeles.  

SB-50 will not reduce vehicle emissions with extreme increase of ride-hailing (uber&lyft) and delivery vehicles.

Perfectly good existing structures and neighborhoods demolished, dumped into landfill with lots scraped of all mature trees. This could take 50-80 years for environment recovery.

No trees, no birds, no bees, no open space for ground water capture. Cement Jungle.

Single family homes converted to duplex-4plex will promote severe overcrowding. Overcrowding brings health issues (mental & physical) and increased need for city services.

Does SB-50 amendments address and comply with current state environment regulations?

Open letter to Board of Supervisors re: the need to expand the Solar Shade Act

March 17, 2019

Supervisors:

re: Item 12. 171194 Building Code – Installation of Solar Energy Systems

We applaud your enthusiasm and desire to promote installation of solar energy systems on new construction to reduce our dependence on non-renewables, and your plans to speed up the installation and permit process, but, there is a much larger problem that needs to be addressed.

You are only concerned with speeding up the installation process of systems that require maintenance and care in order to function properly. These systems are somewhat at the mercy of the state PUC and the energy regulation system in order to be financially viable and they require maximum access to the sun. Energy generation depends entirely on solar access.

The Solar Rights Act was created in 1978 (AB 3250, 1978) primarily to circumvent objections to solar installation by community housing associations. It created a legal framework for solar access. The law includes protections to allow consumers access to sunlight (and prevent shading of systems). The Act also creates the legal right to a solar easement and requires local governments to preserve passive cooling and heating opportunities to the extent feasible in new development projects.

The Solar Shade Act (AB 2321, 1978) provides limited protection to solar energy system owners from shading caused by trees and shrubs on adjacent properties. The law seeks to prevent a property owner from allowing trees or shrubs to shade an existing solar energy system installed on a neighboring property, provided the shading trees or shrubs were planted after the solar collecting device was installed.

Unfortunately, there is no protection against a nearby tower being built that casts a permanent shadow on a new solar installation rendering it worthless. We discovered this flaw in the law a few years ago when we considered a solar roof system for our roof. Perhaps this is a good reason to oppose SB 50 to allow some solar production in the west side of the city. Solar doesn’t work well in the dense highrise neighborhoods.

We need legal protection for the new solar power systems if they are going to be required. Please take some time to look into this and let us know if you would like more detailed information. We need to do a little more to create a solid, successful solar energy system in San Francisco.

Sincerely,

Mari Eliza

Some relevant links:

https://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/solar_basics/rights.php

Solar Rights Act

Solar Easement and the Solar Shade Control Act

The California Solar Rights Act and Historic Resources

 

Energy debate stalls rate-setting for San Francisco’s power program

By: Joshua Sabatini : SFExaminer – excerpt

A decision over “not-to-exceed” rates for San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF program was postponed Monday amid a larger debate about the amount of renewable energy projects the effort would fund.
While the Board of Supervisors approved CleanPowerSF last year, other steps are needed to ensure the  program offering 100 percent renewable energy begins automatically enrolling customers in October.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission needs to approve the community choice aggregation program’s not-to-exceed rates, which was supposed to occur Monday. But that decision was continued until April 23 amid mounting questions about the vision of the CleanPowerSF program.
A contingent of environmentalists — mostly members of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter — that strongly supports such programs criticized CleanPowerSF for lacking the development of large-scale renewable energy projects…
Supervisor David Campos, a proponent of the program, called these two contingents “a strange confluence” of “two extremes.”
He called on advocates to soften their message, suggesting the hard-line stance could mean lights out for the years-in-the-making program.
“I don’t agree with the approach that unless you get 100 percent of the program you want, that you tear it down. I don’t believe that,” Campos said. “I do think that there are some within the advocate community that are willing to do that, and I am not going to let that happen.”… (more)

SF clean-energy program may profit Shell

By Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross : Chronicle Columnists – excerpt

In an ironic twist, San Francisco’s effort to go green with its own clean-energy program could wind up adding tens of millions of dollars to the coffers of one of the biggest oil companies in the world – Shell.
Under the terms of the CleanPowerSF program now before the Board of Supervisors, the city would contract with Shell Energy North America – a subsidiary of Shell Oil – to provide households and businesses with 100 percent renewable electricity…
(more)

Report: carbon emissions lowest in 20 years!

By Katy Grimes: CalWatchDog – excerpt

Some good news on the carbon front: Katy Grimes: Apparently the big news that the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the United States has fallen to the lowest level in 20 years, hasn’t yet reached the desk of Mary Nichols, the director of the California Air Resources Board. Nichols is frantically moving ahead with cap-and-trade auctions at breakneck speed, despite that this will create needless, excessive costs for the state’s employers, and seriously prevent businesses from grow. The uncertainty the CARB is causing among employers in the state has dramatically impacted the state’s economy…

(more)

Related:
Report: carbon emissions lowest in 20 years!
CO2 Emissions in US Drop to 20-year low
Carbon Dioxide Levels Drop Dramatically in U.S.

Luminalt Solar Installation Proposal and Design

Click image to enlarge

ONE WAY WE CAN SAVE ENERGY AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

Design: Luminalt is in the process of designing a 98 kilowatt solar system, comprised of approximately 300 SunPower 308 and 327 watt panels, that will provide around 30% of the power we used in 2011. We prefer to place the panels on the theater roof as it gets the best sun, is closet to the power room, and is not being used for anything else. Use that roof depends on the roof structure, which we are in the process of studying. If we can’t use that roof, for some or all of the panels, we have to design for a different roof and that would entail a different approach. That is why there are no firm figures yet.

Objective: Design a solar electric system that can be installed, in consideration of monthly payments that would have a neutral cash flow impact. In other words the monthly cost of the system to Project Artaud would be equal to or less than cost of the electricity that Project Artaud would be paying to PG&E absent the solar system. We would be looking at a 10-year operating lease agreement with Tech Credit, the funder for the project. At the end of the 10 years, we own the system. I was told to spend no money. Luminalt is working under that premise.

Luminalt Q & A

1. How many parties must be involved in signing contracts and who are those parties?

There are 3 contracts that we must sign:

1 – Tech Credit is the most important contract. We must have a signed contract with Tech Credit by August 31, 2010 in order to take advantage of the safe harbored funds that will be used to purchase the solar panels from SunPower. Tech credit is the financing partner for SunPower and uses the federal section 1603 Treasury Grant to offer a 10-year operating lease. I believe the interest rate is 7%.

2 – PG&E Interconnection Agreement. Luminalt will send an application for their review as soon as the design is finalized. This should set the rates at which we are credited for the energy we produce and answer our questions about future rates and fees.

3 – Luminalt contract with the installer will be signed off prior to the installation of the system. They are a turnkey operation, which means they handle the paperwork for all the applications.

In addition to putting together the financing package, Luminalt will apply for GoSolarSF incentive funds to lower our costs. There are 2 million dollars that will be disbursed over 4 quarters to qualified applicants. How much each gets will be determined by GoSolarSF, and will depend on how many applicants there are.

Dates to apply for the GoSolarSF funds:

• First quarter opening is July 2, 2012
• Second quarter opening is September 2, 2012
• Third quarter opening is December 2, 2012
• Fourth quarter opening is April 2, 2013

2. What is Artaud’s exposure? Must we put up any collateral?

No. This is an unsecured loan and operator’s lease.

3. Are there any additional expenses such as insurance?

We need to finalize the design before we can get that information.

4. What percentage of power can we produce?

We are supposed to get a 30% drop in our draw from PG&E. The system design is based on our electric use during 2011.

5. What is the total value of added capitol improvements?

We need to finalize the plans in order to get the total.

6. Will we have to pay for any city licenses, inspections or fees?

This appears to be a part of the package deal.

7. Is there a balloon payment or closing costs?

This is supposed to be rolled into the ten-year payments that are covered by the 30% savings.

8. What is the cost to PAC, over ten years?

We will know once the design is finalized.

9. What is the benefit to PAC over those 10 years? 

Energy savings. Knowledge that we are doing a lot for the planet. The real financial savings for PAC will come at the end of 10 years, when PAC should reduce payments for electricity to PG+E by at least 30%. We could further reduce our payments be adding more panels if and when politics allow. Theoretically we could produce most of our power in the future if we want to cover our roofs with panels.