California posts from the Daily Score blog - Sightline Daily

Lien in Our Direction

Roger Valdez — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:57:20

Last week, San Francisco became the latest local government to start implementation of low interest loans for energy efficiencies that can be paid back “on-bill.” Unfortunately for the Northwest energy efficiency advocates supporting ESSB 6656, a bill that would pilot on-bill financing in a part of western Washington, legislators made changes that could limit the pilot's effectiveness. Legislators removed critical language that placed lenders in a superior position—meaning lenders would get paid back first—in the event of a default on the loans that could be issued under the legislation. Taking out the “superior lien” language simply means that the already attenuated pilot program will face further hurdles.

The program in San Francisco is much like the one being run very effectively in more than a dozen states and numerous local jurisdictions, where it is often called PACE—Property Assessed Clean Energy financing. The City and County of San Francisco will provide financing, which borrowers can use for energy-saving retrofits, paying the loan back on their bill. From San Francisco’s FAQ on the program:

Since the City and County of San Francisco is the lender, the loan is repaid through a special line item on the property tax bill. If the property is sold or transferred, the tax payment obligation will be assumed by the new owner. Standard property sales disclosures will indicate the existence of a tax, so owners will know that they are benefiting from the retrofit improvements at the time of sale and can set their price accordingly.

Loan programs like the one being kicked off in San Francisco have become best practice for making these kinds of energy efficiency loans. Loans are small, affordable, easy to pay back, and the savings can be tracked on a monthly basis along with the pay back. As I have said more than once to the committee that is considering this legislation in Washington, each one of these elements is critical to incentivizing people to make energy improvements. Sightline’s research on green collar jobs has informed our view that easily accessible financing for retrofits can build demand for energy efficiency workers, creating new jobs.

Unfortunately, some community banks and credit unions have kicked up dust about the superior lien for lenders, confusing legislators about why putting lenders in first position is important. Washington’s legislation will allow local governments to sell bonds and use the proceeds from those sales to fund a loan program for retrofits. Local governments can usually get very inexpensive loans this way and then pass the savings on to borrowers. Borrowers then pay back the local government over time on their regular tax bill.

The superior lien is crucial because—as experts who deal with setting up the bond sales for local governments know—without the superior position bond buyers will charge more interest for their money. That means either less money for a city to loan, or higher interest rates for customers who want to borrow. In the first case, that means fewer retrofits, and in the second case smaller savings for homeowners. Incentivizing lots of retrofits by creating the maximum savings is whole point of the legislation.

The banks opposing the language seem to be doing this for two reasons. First, they are worried about competition. If local governments make these loans then the banks can’t get the interest. But that is part of the problem. Numerous real people working on retrofits testified in Olympia that banks simply won’t make these kinds of loans in the current economy because they are too small and don’t produce very much revenue. Far from clamoring for this business, banks generally aren’t interested in small energy efficiency loans.

Second banks are worried about some of the additional work associated with processing payments associated with loans on existing homes. Because pay back is on the property tax bill banks worry that they will be on the hook to make the payments to the local government if the homeowner doesn’t pay their bill. But banks already have to deal with new and significant collection issues associated with tax bills for properties all the time, like school levies and other local tax measures. And those collections happen for every property in a city while this program will only affect the households that decide to borrow.

In order for the pilot program to have a chance to work like the one in San Francisco the legislature ought to ignore the concerns of bankers for now. Put the superior lien language back in ESSB 6656 and let’s see what happens. The legislation is a pilot after all. As time goes forward, a robust loan program can teach us the best way to implement this kind of simple, affordable and effective loan program in Washington State.

US Balking on BPA Ban

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:13

It looks like the states are going to have to lead the way yet again when it comes to safeguarding the public from potentially dangerous chemicals.

Back in December, EPA Chief Lisa Jackson was talking tough when it came to toxics. "Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward," she stated in a release.

So how do you explain her agency's decision to postpone for at least two years an action plan on bisphenol A -- a chemical that's particularly threatening to infants and children and linked to obesity, cancer, diabetes, and behavior problems? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has tirelessly investigated chemical regulations, reports this week on a meeting between the chemical industry and EPA officials where industry made its case against cracking down on BPA. Shortly afterward, the EPA selected four chemicals for increased scrutiny. BPA, a synthetic estrogen used in hard plastics including bottles and can linings, didn't make the cut. Jackson wouldn't answer questions from the Journal Sentinel as to whether the meeting influenced the decision not to include BPA, but watchdogs are suspicious it played a role, given that the research showing that BPA is hazardous continues growing.

That leaves it to the states to get BPA out of consumer items in order to protect human health and the environment -- just as they did for flame retardants a couple of years ago.

Oregon state senators could vote today on legislation to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. The bill used to include baby food containers, but that's been dropped, rendering the bill close to meaningless given the fact that many manufacturers have voluntarily removed BPA from these items.

The Washington House and Senate each have approved BPA bans. On Wednesday, they're holding hearings that will get them closer to reconciling the differences between their bills. The Senate approved a ban on bottles, sippy cups, and baby food containers while the House went further to include sports bottles.

The US House and Senate slowly are taking steps as well. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed a ban on BPA in food and drink containers and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is working on similar legislation. But don't hold your breath waiting for federal action. The legislation from Feinstein -- called the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009 -- was introduced nearly a year ago and is yet to be scheduled for a committee hearing.

In the meantime, Canada already banned BPA baby bottles. In the US, Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago, and Suffolk County, N.Y. have approved restrictions on BPA in food and drink containers for babies and toddlers. BPA bills are pending in Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators.

UPDATE: February 16, 2010, 4:30 p.m.

Quick additional bit of information. The California Environmental Protection Agency last week announced that it was requesting information on the health effects of BPA. The request states that:

BPA appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65, based on findings of the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction.

The deadline to submit information is April 13, 2010.

Sippy cup photo thanks to Flickr user Jenny Lee Silver.

Tapping the Brakes on Copper Brake Pads

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:38:31

There are approximately 5.8 million cars, trucks and buses registered in Washington and driving its roads and highways. Each time one of those drivers hits the brakes, a bit of dust grinds off the brake pad. In most cases, that dust carries copper and other metals that over time get washed by stormwater into local streams, lakes, and the sea.

Lawmakers in Washington and California are considering bans on copper-containing brake pads, but they're moving at a pace matching I-5 traffic at rush hour. Yet cutting this source of copper seems like such a smart, straightforward policy decision. Here's why:

The evidence of environmental harm is clear. Copper, even at really low levels, is dangerous to fish and other aquatic life. In salmon, it deadens their noses, eliminating a key sense used for finding food and mates and avoiding predators.
Brake pads are a prime source of copper found in waterways. A study in San Francisco found that brake pads were second only to pesticides as a source of copper getting into local waterways. Approximately 70,000 pounds of copper wash into Puget Sound each year along with stormwater, according to state figures.
Non-copper alternatives exist. Researchers say they're safe and already in use (see "How safe are brake pads that don't contain copper?" in this FAQ sheet from California's Brake Pad Alliance).
It'll save money. It's cheaper and easier to prevent copper from getting into the environment in the first place than it is to clean it up later. Copper dissolves in water and is tough to get back out, plus most of the stormwater runs into bodies of water and aquifers without any treatment.

Considering that millions of dollars are being spent every year in Washington alone to clean up and control polluted stormwater, why aren't the lawmakers hustling to get this legislation through?

All the way back in 1995, California figured out that copper had to go. Last year lawmakers there proposed rules to reduce copper in brake pads, but dropped the effort in light of the state's economic woes and challenges associated with the department that would oversee the rules. Leaders promised to return to it this year. So far, it appears that they haven't picked up the issue again.

Washington lawmakers right now are considering legislation (House Bill 3018 and Senate Bill 6557) to get the copper out. The Senate bill, which was approved by an environmental committee and had a hearing on Monday in another committee, would:

By Jan. 1, 2014, limit asbestos, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury to trace amounts in brake pads.
By Dec. 1, 2015, have the Department of Ecology review the risks of alternative brake pad material.
By Jan. 1, 2021, limit copper to 5 percent or less.
By Jan. 1, 2025, limit copper to 0.5 percent or less, provided a safe alternative is found.

The Washington measure has support from the Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Partnership, the agency overseeing the restoration of Puget Sound.

Why is this taking so long? Obviously, brake safety is a huge concern, and goodness knows that Toyota's brake issues -- while not related to brake-pad manufacture -- might give a few lawmakers pause. The folks at the Brake Pad Partnership explain the scope of this sort of legislation:

Brakes containing copper are currently widely used on new vehicles. Eliminating any intentional use of copper in these brakes while meeting the auto companies’ strong performance standards will be revolutionary for the brake industry...Given the amount of work involved...brake manufacturers will begin product development efforts to reach the 0.5 percent copper standard immediately.

Eleven years still seems like a long time to wait for a reduction in copper levels in brake pads. But given the scope of the change, and the fact that Washington is now out in front on this matter -- ahead of California and thus leading the nation -- the legislation is sounding better and better.

Brake pedal photo thanks to Flickr user Kaptain Kobold.

Equinox Center

Eric de Place — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:39:05

In case some of our readers have an interest in the San Diego region, here's a plug for Equinox Center, a sustainability think-tank for that part of Southern California. Equinox is the brainchild of Aaron Contorer, an erstwhile northwesterner and former Sightline board member.

Equinox just released the first-ever version of their Regional Quality of Life Dashboard -- a sort of Cascadia Scorecard for the less sun-deprived. In other words, it's an indicators project tracking sustainability trends in San Diego. Here's the down-low:

The San Diego Regional Quality of Life Dashboard was initiated in 2009 by the Equinox Center. Equinox created the Dashboard to shine a spotlight on the questions that truly matter to San Diegans: Are we leaving our children a heritage of thriving, rejuvenating nature? Will our businesses have access to resources such as energy and water so they can provide economic opportunities to all of the region's inhabitants? Do we have efficient and adequate transportation options? Simply, is our quality of life improving?

Good stuff. Here's hoping that San Diego policymakers and leaders take a close look.

Retrofits for All--Tugboats, Trucks and Trains

Roger Valdez — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:36:07

Sightline research director, Clark Williams-Derry recently wrote (Give a Toot, Don’t Pollute!) about Foss Marine’s hybrid tug. He mentioned a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency that Foss was in line for to retrofit tugboats, reducing the amount of pollution emitted from their engines. Last week EPA administrator Lisa Jackson was in town to award that grant along with several others. The grant announcement came from the EPA but also from a group called the West Coast Collaborative, a “partnership between leaders from federal, state, and local government, the private sector, and environmental groups committed to reducing diesel emissions along the West Coast.”

What made this particular cycle of grants interesting was the idea of retrofitting things that we don’t typically think of when we consider green jobs and energy efficiencies—boats, trucks and trains. The grant to Collaborative projects totaled more than $16 million over the course of the next few years.

The Collaborative is impressive in its scope, both geographically and in what it’s doing to reduce climate changing emissions, increase efficiencies, and reduce dependence on unsustainable sources of fuel. Let’s take a look at trucks and tugboats.

The next time you happen to be on the highway, maybe on a holiday road trip, take a look at the semi–truck and trailer rigs on the road. You’ll notice that some of them have sleek looking fiberglass pieces between the truck and the trailer and some may have “skirts” on either side of the trailer. These aren’t just additions to make the truck look cool ( Yosemite Sam mud flaps notwithstanding).

See a full Power Point presentation on savings from improving aerodynamics here.

According to the Collaborative’s fact sheet these “technologies have been proven to improve fuel efficiency by 7.4 percent, 5.1 percent and 2 percent, respectively, and reduce harmful diesel emissions proportionally.” And it is serious business. There are many manufacturers working on improving the fuel efficiency of trucks by decreasing the drag created by trailers. And the improvements don’t just reduce pollution they save money. Again, quoting the fact sheet, the projects funded by the EPA grants will “save Northwest truckers an estimated $3,500,000 in fuel costs annually.” That is a good step toward getting off the fossil fuel roller coaster and it will create new jobs for installers, funded, partially, by the more than $2 million going into the project.

Let’s not forget the tugboats. The tugboat project is part of the efforts of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (a member of the West Coast Collaborative) to reduce particulate emissions from tugboats operating in the Puget Sound. The EPA grant allocates more than $700,000 for the retrofit of the four 4,000-horsepower marine engines on the Garth and the Lindsey, both boats operating in Foss Maritime’s fleet in Puget Sound. The engines will be retrofitted with technology developed by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, a pollution-reducing device called the XtrmCat (TM) Diesel Oxidation Catalyst.

The device, essentially a catalytic converter, is on the EPA’s list of emerging technologies and is projected to reduce tugboats’ emissions of particulate matter by 25 percent, hydrocarbons by 25 percent and carbon monoxide by 70 percent hydrocarbons by 25 percent and carbon monoxide by 70 percent. And David J. Johnson, president and CEO of ERW told me that the device does the same thing for the tug boat that a catalytic converter does for a car, capturing particulate emissions before they get into the air. This device also allows the capture of oil that otherwise would be lost, recycling it so that, ultimately, the tug uses less oil. The six-year project will create about 5 jobs and is intended as a pilot for expanded efforts to retrofit tugboats throughout the fleet.

These might seem like small steps when it comes to industries that are inherently really dirty, creating lots of emissions and pollution. Like retrofitting buildings, incremental steps are important for the environment and people’s health, reducing emissions that contribute to climate change but also asthma and upper respiratory illness. They also begin the shift towards efficiencies that reduce fuel use, save money, and create green jobs.

More must be done but these strategies clear the way to important complementary policies for comprehensive cap–and-trade legislation. Even little steps are part of a big puzzle that will come together to really curb carbon emissions and create jobs.

Market Oversight in the Western Climate Initiative

Eric de Place — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:03:44

Though most climate policy wonks are now focused on US federal legislation or the summit in Copenhagen, the Western Climate Initiative is soldiering on -- and doing good work too. The WCI's Markets Committee recently released a white paper on carbon market oversight that is worth a read.

While the paper doesn't draw many conclusions about WCI's final design, it does provide a very helpful summary of the principal regulatory options in both the U.S. and Canada. It also includes a nice overview of regulation under the EU's cap-and-trade system, as well as a discussion of the regulatory options under consideration for the big cap-and-trade bills in Congress. In other words, it's a good primer for understanding the lay of the land of carbon market regulation.

The more I study the issue, the more I'm drawn to a regulatory framework that restricts secondary and derivatives trading to registered exchanges -- at least at the outset of the program. One good vehicle would be the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) which has an excellent track record of carefully managing commodities trading in the US. (Together with the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange, the CFTC handles the trading program for RGGI.) In simple terms:

Exchanges are associated with a higher degree of oversight and transparency. They are centralized marketplaces that offer standardized contracts that are fungible with one another and generally require “clearance.” Federal law in the United States and provincial law in Canada generally require exchanges to set rules implementing governance principles on market manipulation, publication of trading information, fair and equitable trading, emergency authority, and more.

In “clearing,” a central organization becomes the buyer to the seller and the seller to the buyer—that is, it becomes the counterparty to both sides. The clearing organization, therefore, assumes the obligation to complete the transaction even if one party is unable to perform its part. Most clearing organizations associated with exchanges perform clearing only for members, who set the clearing organization’s rules and collectively shoulder the risk of default of any one party.

There seems to be growing interest in using an exchange for carbon markets. I'll dig into this more on this later in the series. For now, WCI is accepting public comments on the white paper until December 18.

Green-Collar Jobs: Realizing the Promise

Eric Hess — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:13:50

Today, Sightline released a primer on green jobs called Green-Collar Jobs: Realizing the Promise. Green jobs have been a much-discussed topic here and elsewhere. But what are they? Who has them? And how do we get more for Northwest workers?

A follow up to our popular Cap and Trade 101, Sightline's new primer explains what makes a green job, how investment in clean energy creates those jobs, and how Northwest leaders can build a green-collar workforce in our region.

Included in the primer:

Green jobs, defined:

Green-collar jobs are those held by employees who devote a substantial share of their work hours to activities that boost energy efficiency, increase the supply of renewable energy, or prevent, reduce, or clean up pollution.

The Promise

Green jobs can speed progress on three important challenges at once: economic recovery, job creation, and climate change. This is an enormous opportunity to ease our dependence on climate-warming fossil fuels while fostering lasting, broadly shared economic prosperity for local families.

The Plan

The biggest chance in the near term for green-collar job creation is in boosting energy efficiency in buildings. This is local work that saves energy. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced. Focusing on training programs for workers that lead to credentials or certifications and factoring training, employment, and formal education into career ladders will help grow a green-collar workforce that gets Northwest families on a track to prosperity in the clean energy economy.

Combining work training programs in fields like efficiency retrofitting or renewable energy with innovative financing programs will supply the workers, stoke demand, and secure funding for the green-collar economy--right here in our communities.

The Prize

Applying a comprehensive set of solutions can help the Northwest lead a green-collar economic recovery. Success won't be fully captured in higher quarterly earnings or a lower unemployment rate; it will be measured by whether the Northwest increasingly offers its residents a more sustainable way to live, with greater energy independence, fewer greenhouse-gas emissions, cozier buildings with lower operating costs, and good-paying jobs that provide paychecks with a purpose for local families.

Is Breaking Up So Hard to Do?

Anna Fahey — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:42:58

I wrote recently about the US Chamber of Commerce and its troubling stance on global climate change--not to mention its lobbying efforts to thwart national energy policy. (You may recall they were asking for a national-level courtroom hearing in the style of the Scopes trial of 1925 to weigh the merits of climate science.) I also asked which Northwest companies would rise to the occasion and break off ties with the Chamber. After all, membership (and silence) in this context can be read--by the Chamber and by policymakers alike--as a sign of agreement with the organization's politics.

Oregon’s Nike already publicly broke with the Chamber for this very reason. Nothing from Microsoft or Amazon yet. But a few others are peeling away. Just this week, New Mexico's largest utility made the break:

The Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) is dropping its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the business group's stance on climate change. Earlier this week, PNM criticized the Chamber of Commerce, saying, "We believe the science is compelling enough to act sooner rather than later, and we support comprehensive federal legislation to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect customers against unreasonable cost increases."

See, that wasn't so hard!

And, closer to our neck of the woods, San Francisco-based PG&E recently broke away as well. From the Washington Post:

Pacific Gas and Electric, a large California utility, said Tuesday that it is pulling out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because it disagrees with the chamber's aggressive opposition to climate-change legislation...Chief executive Peter Darbee had written a letter criticizing the chamber's recent demands that the Environmental Protection Agency hold a "Scopes Monkey Trial" to prove the science behind climate change.
"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored," Darbee wrote.

And they say breaking up is hard to do. Not if the relationship is an abusive one -- or if boorish politics can no longer be tolerated. Don't you already feel that sense of relief?

That's two big western utilities in a matter of days. Now, the question is, who's next?

57 Million Chances to Get Housing Right

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:07:49

Two new papers dig into the whys and hows of building higher-density communities, reaching useful and interesting conclusions.

First, the whys. The National Research Council's Transportation Research Board calculated the greenhouse gas savings if new housing was more compact and put homes close to jobs and other amenities. "Driving and the Built Environment: Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emission," a report requested by Congress and published last week, determined that 57 million US homes will be needed by 2030 to accommodate population growth and replacement housing.

The group defined compact housing as construction that's twice as dense as current development, and assumed it would occur at the urban fringe and through some infill in cities (as opposed to focusing on making existing housing more dense).

So what are the benefits to the climate?

According to this study, they were fairly modest. Assuming:

75 percent of development is compact...
leads to residents driving 25 percent less...
the result is vehicle miles traveled, fuel use, and CO2 emissions of new and existing households would decline up to 8 percent by 2030, increasing to up to 11 percent by 2050.

But if you add to the increase in density some improvements in public transit and alternative transportation, vehicle miles traveled can drop 25 percent, which starts to make a real difference.

Now to the 'hows.' So how do communities get more compact? Let's turn to the second paper, "Removing the Roadblocks: How to Make Sustainable Development Happen Now" out last month from the UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law.

The report is a blueprint for changing policy and tax structure to encourage more dense development. Its focus is California, but the recommendations could be applied anywhere.

First it identifies four roadblocks to increasing density (which it also calls "sustainable development," "compact," "transit oriented," "smart growth," "infill," and my fav, "new urbanist." So chic!). The challenges, which I'm quoting directly:

Inadequate infrastructure: a lack of public transit, insufficient, or aging utilities, and under-performing schools in city centers and other areas that are prime locations for sustainable development.
An uncertain regulatory process: myriad local government requirements, planning and zoning restrictions, fire and other code limitations, extensive project-specific environmental review processes, and local opposition (“no growth” advocates and unhappy neighbors).
Higher economic costs: a typically more expensive construction process, longer permitting time, and additional infrastructure burdens make sustainable development in existing neighborhoods less economically competitive than constructing in undeveloped areas.
Skewed tax incentives: local governments prefer to permit large single-use retail buildings to maximize sales tax revenue and minimize infrastructure costs, rather than mixed-use development.

Their bottom-line is that the regulations and incentives to get smart growth take place at the local level, but require action from the state and federal government to take hold. If you're really interested, it's worth reading all of the report's recommendations (the whole thing is only 23 pages), but some that struck me:

At the local level, change building fees and permits for sustainable projects to reduce or eliminate those costs. Create policy to support and facilitate infill near transit hubs.

For state governments, shift discretionary funds away from new highway projects towards infrastructure investments in high-density areas. Eliminate sales and property taxes that lead local governments to prefer big commercial developments over mixed use.

At the federal level, spend federal money (grants, contracts, etc.) on sustainable projects. Make it easier for projects to get federal-loan guarantees by removing the Federal National Mortgage Association requirement that condos are 70 percent pre-sold.

The report also has recommendations for supporting and increasing the reach of industry leaders in sustainable development.

There's plenty of reason for Puget Sound area leaders to take a look at both studies. As Doug MacDonald points out in this recent piece in Crosscut, the area is failing to meet its density goals according to new population data. MacDonald, the former head of the Washington state Department of Transportation, in particular highlights the need to pay attention to Transportation 2040. The plan is being drafted by the Puget Sound Regional Council and will help shape transportation decisions for the next 30 years.

Photo of San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter courtesy of Flickr user **Mary** under the Creative Commons license.

Too Much Cash For Clunkers?

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:20:45

The stats from the Cash-for-Clunkers program sound so promising: more than 690,000 gas guzzlers taken off the road in exchange for more fuel-efficient models. About 84 percent of the trade-ins were trucks, while 59 percent of the new purchases were cars, according to Consumer Reports. The top three vehicles scrapped:

Ford Explorer 4WD
Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD

In exchange for:

Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic
Ford Focus

This had to be a big win for the environment, no? Well...not really, especially if you were hoping for a cost-effective win. University of California Davis transportation economist Christopher Knittel ran the numbers:

Miles per gallon for the vehicles being scrapped: 16.3 (Consumer Reports put the latest numbers at 15.8, but it's still close)
MPG for the new cars: 24.8
Assumed miles driven per year for each: 12,000
Gallons of gas saved per year: 270
Tons of carbon dioxide saved per year: 2.7

Assuming that the clunker would have been on the road for five more years, and given that the average rebate was $4,200, plus giving some value to the non-CO2 pollutants that are removed by the more efficient new cars, the price per ton of CO2 not released to the environment: $237.

By comparison, the price of CO2 on the European trading market is about $22 a ton right now.

And that's Knittel's best case scenario (see more on how he calculated these figures in this paper, published by the University of California Energy Institute). In reality, many of the clunkers likely weren't being driven that much before they were scrapped, the new cars could be driven even farther given their better mileage and delightful newness, and the life of the trade-ins is more likely three or four years, not five. The actual price per ton could be closer to $500. That could buy a lot of saved trees or weather-proofed windows.

Which isn't to say that swapping 16 mpg vehicles for 25 mpg ones isn't a good thing. As one of my colleagues pointed out in an early blog post, you do get some real bang for those bucks. And of course the prime purpose of the $2.88 billion Cash-for-Clunkers program was to sell cars, and it sure did that.

Note: The original blog post was updated at 3 p.m. on Aug. 26 with final Cash-for-Clunkers sales totals.

Clunker photo courtesy of Flickr user ThreadedThoughts under the Creative Commons license.

My Fridge Could Power the World

Jennifer Langston — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:30:05

According to two news stories today, the contents of my fridge -- a six-pack, open bottles of wine, dregs from last week's farmers' market and leftover stir-fry -- might help power my house some day.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur has invented a system that makes ethanol out of old beer, wine and other waste kitchen products. My favorite part: the still doubles as a fuel pump for your car!

Also in the Bay Area, a pilot program is using leftovers to make electricity. Food scraps from 2,300 restaurants and grocery stores are collected and pumped into tanks at a local wastewater treatment plant, where microbes do their stuff. The decomposing food releases methane, which is used to make electricity. (A catch: Forks, oysters, and plastic bags are big problems.)

But since I don't eat out that much, I was more interested in the beer-to-energy solution.

I can't personally vouch for this system, and the Times points out that there's only one of them in existence. But the E Fuel MicroFueler (invented by the same guy who developed part of the Nintendo Wii gaming system) apparently turns high-alcohol organic feedstock -- such as old wine and beer -- into ethanol.

It's being marketed to homeowners, but even all the booze in my fridge wouldn't get me very far. That's where the commercial brewers, soda and candy companies come in. In San Diego, the distributor of MicroFuelers is working with Karl Strauss Brewing Co., Gordon Biersch Brewing Co. and Sunny Delight Beverages Co. to convert 29,000 tons of their liquid waste. The idea is that a truck would pick up their dregs in volume and deliver them to home-based MicroFuelers, who would then generate ethanol at their homes.

The systems cost $10,000 but, implausibly, there's a $5,000 federal tax credit available to anyone who buys one. Along with a $2 per-gallon charge to pump out the ethanol, the company estimates the average payback time for the MicroFueler would be two years. And the end product could be used to power cars (albeit less efficiently than gasoline) or a home generator.

It does seem a little too good to be true, but it would be nice to find a higher calling for the bad bottles of wine I never remember to return.

Check out the rest of the Northwest's top 10 sustainability headlines at Sightline Daily, or get the news delivered via email each morning by clicking here. All of today's news can be found here.

Photo courtesy of flickr user add1sun via the Creative Commons license

Cascadia's Cities Are Super Smart

Lisa Stiffler — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:09:16

Cities in Cascadia should be feeling pretty good right now. This month the Natural Resources Defense Council released its ranking of Smarter Cities in the US and our area scored well.

For large cities, this region dominated the top three spots with Seattle at No. 1, San Francisco at No. 2, and Portland at No. 3. Cascadia also did well for medium cities, and for small cities Washington's Bellingham landed the top spot and Mountain View, Calif., located outside of SF was just behind it (see highlights of how NW American cities placed below).

This was much more than a feel-good popularity contest. The folks at NRDC attempted a really thoughtful, detailed analysis for the rankings, sifting through more than 600 cities to find those that are leading the nation in their sustainable ways.

They looked at nine parameters: quality of life, green building, environmental regulations and compliance, air quality, transportation, recycling, green space, energy conservation and production, and water quality.

The mission of the ranking "is to foster a little friendly competition as well as provide a forum for exploring the progress American cities are making in environmental stewardship and sustainable growth."

Along with the rankings, NRDC launched a new Smarter Cities website chock full of tools to help city slickers find farmers markets, green hotels, recycling sites, and which beaches are safe.

The site is also trying to build a Smarter Cities community of citizen bloggers and reporters, which is an interesting idea that may or may not succeed, particularly given the competition from daily papers and neighborhood-focused websites (for Seattle, sites for Ballard and West Seattle neighborhoods are very popular). But the intent is admirable.

So give yourselves a pat on the back, Cascadia. All that hard work preserving urban forests, forging ahead with recycling, and building miles of bike trails are getting some notice -- and hopefully inspiring other urban areas. (And it's probably lucky for Seattle that the rankings didn't include British Columbia...but we always enjoy our healthy cross-border competition as well!)

Cascadia's Smarter Cities winners:

Large cities (250,000+)

1. Seattle
2. San Francisco
3. Portland
4. Oakland
5. San Jose
7. Sacramento

Medium cities (100,000-249,999)

2. Santa Rosa, CA
5. Eugene, OR
6. Spokane, WA
11. Berkeley, CA
13. Irvine, CA
15. Everett, WA

Small cities (50,000-99,999)

1. Bellingham, WA
2. Mountain View, CA
10. Redmond, WA
13. Beaverton, OR

Seattle photo courtesy of Flickr user Seattle Municipal Archives under the Creative Commons license.

Riding the Bus...'Cause Julie's Cool

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:06:35

If you want to get folks to cut their energy use, you don't necessarily have to raise rates or hand out fluorescent light bulbs. Just let them know how much juice the Joneses are using. An article in the Atlantic Monthly reports that giving utility customers information on how much power they used compared to their neighbors drives down consumption.

The strategy was devised by Robert Cialdini, a social psychologist from Arizona State University and expert in tweaking human behavior through what he calls "peer information" (as opposed to peer pressure).

A company called Positive Energy, at which Cialdini is the chief scientist, has created software that measures energy usage by neighborhood. Here's how it's used:

Results are sent to consumers on behalf of their local utility, praising you with a row of smiley faces (you’ve used 58 percent less electricity than your neighbors this month!) or damning you with none (you used 39 percent more electricity than your neighbors in the past 12 months, and it cost you $741 extra).

In Positive Energy’s reports, a once-intangible bit of social information—how much energy you use relative to your neighbors—is made tangible. Now you can find out not just what people in the same city are doing, but what people in your neighborhood, living in the same-size houses, are doing...

The approach was tested in Sacramento. How'd it work?

... Positive Energy began its pilot program with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in 2008, people who received personalized “compared with your neighbors” data on their statements reduced their energy use by more than 2 percent over the course of a year. In energyspeak, a 2 percent reduction is huge; with the pilot sample of 35,000 homes, it’s the equivalent of taking 700 homes off the grid.

The research made me think of my own experience with riding the bus. It's something I never really did growing up or when at college. I don't love driving, but it's what I've always done. Then a colleague named Julie at the Seattle P-I mentioned that she took the bus. I liked Julie. She lived not too far from my house, was a smart, cool girl, and was a reporter like me.

It made me rethink my no-to-buses policy, and after not too long I started taking the bus -- not every day, but when it fit with my reporting duties. I found that I liked the time to read, and that the bus was consistently on schedule. I made reference to bus riding to other colleagues when I got the chance, trying to spread the faith, Cialdini-style. I'm not sure if I got many converts, but I'm still working on it.

And some Washington residents will be getting a chance to get Positive Energy feedback; the Atlantic article said that their services are coming to the state. I've contacted the company for more information and will update this post when I get a response.

Light bulb photo courtesy of Flickr user Impala74 under the Creative Commons license.

Cascadia's Congress Members on Cap and Trade

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:52

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed the House narrowly on Friday. The epic, historic, landmark (insert favorite, happy superlative here) piece of legislation that sets limits on greenhouse gases and invests in renewable energy passed narrowly with a 219 to 212 vote. Even President Barack Obama made last-minute calls to get this thing approved. So how did lawmakers vote in the Cascadia region?

The tally was an even split for and against--10 to 10, mostly down party lines. But there were a couple of surprises thrown in.

Generally Democrats and Congress members from the western portion of the NW states supported Waxman-Markey (or the American Clean Energy and Security Act), while Republicans and those on the eastern side of states voted against it--with a couple of exceptions.

Seattle's Rep. Jim McDermott was on board. McDermott had raised concerns about cap and trade, offering his own climate-change bill, a measure to cap greenhouse gas emissions and sell the permits at a government-set price, which essentially functions as a carbon tax. In a statement McDermott said his concerns about the stability of a cap-and-trade system and protections for low-income Americans who face higher energy costs in the future were both addressed by the final bill.

But Springfield's Rep. Peter DeFazio jumped ship. It isn't that the Oregon Democrat doesn't support controlling greenhouse gases, he just doesn't like cap and trade, like really doesn't like cap and trade (he's railed against it in a letter to the Oregonian and in a talk at the City Club of Portland. He said in the letter: "a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful (greenhouse gas) emission reductions."

Our analysis indicates that those criticisms aren't legit. In our updated Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer, we dug into those concerns (see pages 19-20, "The Gaming Worry"). Super briefly, manipulation isn't a worry because other cap-and-trade systems have worked (Europe's, the Northeast state's RGGI program, and the sulfur cap), the bill includes provisions to prevent gaming, and the carbon market is fundamentally different than energy and housing-mortgage markets.

The other folks switching it up were Republican Rep. Dave Reichert from Washington's city of Auburn voting yes, and Western Idaho's Democrat Rep. Walt Minnick voting no.

Here's how the votes came out:

Washington (6-2):

YES

Rick Larsen (D)
Norm Dicks (D)
Jay Inslee (D)
Dave Reichert (R)
Brian Baird (D)
James McDermott (D)

Doc Hastings (R)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R)

Oregon (3-2):

YES

David Wu (D)
Kurt Schrader (D)
Earl Blumenauer (D)

Greg Walden (R)
Peter DeFazio (D)

California (1-1):

YES

Michael Thompson (D)

Walter Herger (R)

Idaho (0-3):

Walt Minnick (D)
Michael Simpson (R)

Montana (0-1):

Dennis Rehberg (R)

Alaska (0-1):

Donald Young (R)

Map showing Waxman-Markey votes geographically comes from the New York Times -- see the entire interactive map here.

Dude, Where's My Carbon?

Roger Valdez — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:42:50

Dude, if you are still trying to figure out exactly what this whole cap and trade thing is about, dude, you owe it to yourself to check out this awesome primer from NPR!