A Smart, Green City: what it takes

The Chehalis River mouth is in Grays Harbor, near Aberdeen.

Grant Cooke: Benicia: Not exactly a smart, green city

 

By Grant Cooke, August 28, 2015 

 

August 30, 2015    Roger Straw     Repost from the Benicia Herald

THOMAS HOBBES, THE GREAT 16TH-CENTURY British political philosopher, wrote in “Leviathan” that humans living without legitimate government would eventually dissolve into a “state of nature.” This state of nature was brutish with violent chaos, evil discord and civil war. Legitimate government, Hobbes believed, had a “social contract” to wield power and authority.

Hobbes’ vision that governmental power be used for the moral good evolved into our current view that government, particularly on the local level, has a responsibility and obligation to protect and maintain the safety of its citizens. Which brings us to present-day Benicia and the return of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project as we anticipate the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR).

Under Hobbes’ social contract, it is the obligation of local government to maintain public safety. Anything that presents a known risk of explosion or other significant health risk is not something that city government should tolerate. To willingly allow a project that presents a public danger to move forward is ridiculous. And to argue that the Crude-by-Rail Project (CBR) is safe is equally ridiculous. A quick Internet search reveals numerous examples of trains carrying Bakken crude derailing or exploding.

The fossil fuel industry has a clear record of putting profits above safety. We have ample local examples, from the Chevron fire in Richmond to the San Bruno natural gas explosion. With tens of thousands of oil cars carrying volatile crude into the Bay Area, one or more explosions is all but guaranteed to occur. We all know it’s just a role of the dice whether the explosion happens in Benicia or another town along the line.

The conversation will probably build with the release Monday of the RDEIR. No doubt, the discussion will be as heated as ever. Regardless, let’s put some broad strokes on the situation, as there are several factors to consider:

• Firstly, the CBR is an effort by Valero to increase its business and, therefore, its profits. Unfortunately, for that to happen the city must risk its residents’ health and well-being. This is not in your interest.
• Valero, an oil company, benefits from the CBR; the city doesn’t. The idea that Valero, or any for-profit fossil fuel company, is a “Good Neighbor” to Benicia is silly and naïve.
• Benicia’s future, and the city’s future tax base, can no longer be dependent on heavy-carbon industries. The current tax revenue from the refinery is not sustainable, or even desirable.
• The decline in costs for renewable energy will create an energy price deflation that will make oil non-competitive. Ali Al-Naimi, Saudis Arabia’s oil minister, told a climate conference in Paris in June that the world’s largest crude exporter will eventually sell solar power instead of crude. He also renewed the kingdom’s commitment to current levels of production, putting more pressure on U.S. oil producers and refiners.
• Besides the global switch to renewable energy, our local refineries will be under growing pressure from regional air quality regulators to clean up their emissions. And as the international effort to make large emitters pay for their carbon releases grows, carbon taxes or offsets will cut into refinery profits.
• Within a decade or so, Valero and most Bay Area refineries will be shuttered. We need to begin discussions with Valero about what happens when they shut down. How will the refinery pay for the site cleanup and residual hazardous waste?
• Even as the tax stream from Valero declines, Benicia, like most California cities, is also facing exponentially rising retiree benefit costs. The revenue decline cannot be made up with increased resident taxes (as the base gets older, it is harder to raise taxes) — so Benicia will be forced to cut services.
• Also likely: Benicia’s municipal services and government will merge with Vallejo’s or go to a regional model. The era of small, local government is ending for numerous reasons. Small city governments can’t achieve the cost efficiencies or employee productivity needed to keep pace with rising costs and retiree benefit obligations. Large organizations can make better use of technology and smart systems to improve productivity and increase efficiency.
• Small city governments don’t have the resources needed to deal with the future’s looming problems. Valero’s CBR clearly shows how ineffective small cities like Benicia are in dealing with problems that overlap. The same is true as small cities are forced to confront the future’s critical problems of mitigating climate change, wealth inequality (poverty, homelessness, gang violence and terrorism), and restraining agglomeration and urban sprawl. For example, Benicia city government’s ongoing struggles to convert to a new information technology package. Or the City Council’s inability to address even simple environmental issues like eliminating the use of plastic bags, promoting renewable energy or endorsing a pro-environmental or sustainability position. If a city government can’t agree that reducing the number of plastic bags clogging up our landfills is a good thing, how can it promote community respect for the environment — or more complicated values like decency, tolerance or a respect for others?

* * *

FOR MANY REASONS, BENICIA IS AT A CROSSROADS, and its future is worrisome. As a city, we need to come to grips with the reality that the fossil fuel/carbon era is ending, and we have to turn to a pro-environmental, knowledge-based and sustainable economy.

For the past several months, I’ve been researching the world’s smart and green cities. Despite the heroic efforts of Benicia’s Community Sustainability Commission, I’m sad to say that my lovely hometown is neither.

I was reminded of this the other evening at a friend’s house that overlooked our bay. The view was beautiful, with the silvery-gray straits glowing in the declining sunlight. But when I looked closer, I saw trash along the waterline, and the water showed traces of oil and pollution in the shallows.

It was so much different than Copenhagen’s harbor. Did you know that the citizens of Copenhagen had the wherewithal a few years ago to clean centuries of pollution and trash out of their harbor? And that every summer, four major swimming areas along that city’s waterfront attract thousands of Danes and other Europeans to bask in the northern sun and swim in the harbor’s clean waters?

Can you imagine going for a swim in Benicia’s harbor?

Copenhagen’s clean harbor points to the sharp contrast in attitudes about the environment held by Europeans and Americans. After decades of neglect, Europe has come around and now takes pride in cleaning up its environment. Most European nations, reflecting the will of their citizens, are mindful of waste and diligently work to reduce carbon emissions. Hamburg, for example, is deeply worried that global warming will raise sea levels and create havoc with their harbor and lowlands. The city has carved out several green zones, added trees to absorb carbon and reduced auto traffic. In Scotland, over 40 percent of the country’s domestic energy use is supplied by renewable energy. Germany is striving for 100-percent renewable energy by mid-century.

But Benicia — a city that sits on the water — doesn’t seem to give a flip about potential flooding from warming seas, or the steady degradation of its remarkably beautiful environment. The lack of concern underscores the general sense shared by far too many Americans — particularly those involved in the carbon industries — who view our environment and atmosphere as one large garbage can.

 

Grant Cooke is a long-time Benicia resident and owner of Sustainable Energy Associates. He is also co-author of “The Green Industrial Revolution: Energy, Engineering and Economics.” His new book, “Smart Green Cities” will be published in 2016.

 

 

Oil Industry's devastating alternative to the Clean Power Plan

The Oil Industry's devastating alternative to the Clean Power Plan

Nick Abraham editor Oil Check Northwest 
 
August 6th - Earlier this week, President Obama announced its long awaited Clean Power Plan, and the new rules were met with plenty of fanfare from all of us that want clean air to breathe and a healthy climate to live in.

Unsurprisingly, oil and coal companies were not as pleased. They’ve organized an army of front groups, pseudo-think tanks and bought off organizations to attack and cripple the plan.

Locally, “astro-turf” groups like Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy and the Washington Climate Collaborative are not just attacking action like the Clean Power Plan. They have a widespread agenda to prevent new environmental protections and undercut the Northwest’s progress.

They’ve laid out an alternative to a clean energy future, a Dirty Power Plan, for the Northwest. You won’t see them announcing it from podiums or siting down with Katie Couric to talk it over. But make no mistake the fossil fuel industry has a plan for our corner of the world.

1. Sinking Clean Fuels

No surprise here. With a virtual monopoly on what we can fuel up with, oil companies are fighting desperately to prevent either state from enacting a clean fuels program. Despite putting $2 million into Oregon campaigns in 2014 clean fuels prevailed in a landmark victory this past session in Oregon. The legislature mandated that 10% of fuels in the state must come from renewable sources. Not one’s to bow out gracefully,oil companies have put forth 3 different ballot measures for 2016 that would repeal or weaken clean fuels.

In Washington, legislators who received millions from oil companies, almost completely derailed compromise on a new transportation package by trying to preemptively block clean fuels. Senate leaders added a poison pill to the transportation package that said if Governor Inslee implemented clean fuels through executive order all alternative transportation funding would move to road construction. In an effort to keep our state moving (literally), the Governor begrudgingly accepted the deal. Chalk one up for the oil companies.

2. Pipelines Trains and Terminals

The Northwest stands directly between Asian markets and major fossil fuel deposits in Canada and the interior Western US. The fastest, cheapest route to getting their coal, oil and natural gas to export is through our backyard, and that’s exactly what their Dirty Power Plan would propose.
Here’s what that would look like:

- Coal terminals North of Bellingham and Longview WA with over 90 million metric tons of coal total

- Expanded Bakken crude oil refining in Ferndale, Anacortes, Tacoma, Hoquiam, and Vancouver WA as well as Clatskanie OR could move over 1 million barrels/day through our region. That’s 14 oil trains a day

- Natural gas: 140 miles of new pipeline from Sumas WA to Warrenton OR cutting through major population centers along the I-5 corridor as well as a 230 mile line from Malin to Coos Bay OR

3. Keeping Pollution Free

This year, both Oregon and Washington had bills in the legislature to put a price on pollution. In Oregon bill 3470 would have given the state the authority to regulate pollutants much the same way as California currently does, through a carbon cap and trade system. A second bill (3250), would have charged polluters a fee and given that money back to each Oregonian with a dividend check, very similar to Alaska's program that charges oil companies a royalty and gives checks to every resident. (If you've ever had a friend from Alaska they cannot shut up about their "free" check every year)

Unfortunately both bills didn’t make it out of session, as a transportation fight took out all the air in the legislature. Much in the same was as Washington; a provision was added to the transportation package that would cut clean fuels in exchange for a deal. Only this time oil companies were caught red handed writing the bill themselves. After a drawn out battle, the package was killed and clean fuels lived on to fight an other day.

In Washington Governor Inslee laid out a proposal to cut emissions from the state’s largest industrial polluters, a plan that would have given the billions raised to badly need transportation improvements and education funding that’s still in a $3.5 billion hole. This bill, similar to Oregon, was killed after a barrage of attacks from oil-backed legislators.

Not to be out maneuvered, in late July, Governor Inslee announced that the state would be regulating emissions through the Department of Ecology’s mandate. As impressive as this plan is, it still needs backup to be completely effective. To truly have a strong impact, the law will need a way to enforce the regulations. Many predict that a price on pollution will be put on the ballot in 2016 and this would give the Governor’s proposal some much needed teeth.

This week’s Clean Power Plan announcement was a powerful step forward; we couldn’t be happier to see a tough but achievable strategy to cut emissions. But lets not forget that fossil fuel companies have a plan of their own. And the Dirty Power Plan does not paint a bright future for the Northwest.

Nick Abraham editor Oil Check Northwest
nick@oilchecknw.com 

Fun and Games Friday: Ignoring public safety (for a small fee)

Using bad tank cars? Then pay a fee, Brown proposes 

By Rick Rouan    The Columbus Dispatch  •  June 30, 2015 

[Ed. note: this "pay a pittance" bill was sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bob Casey, D-Pa., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Mark Warner, D-Va. who continue to promote it.]

Sen. Sherrod Brown wants shippers using tank cars that have been linked to fiery train derailments to pay fees that would be used to reroute train tracks, train first responders and clean up spills.

Brown has proposed fees that start at $175 per car for those using the DOT-11, a tank car that federal regulators have warned hazardous-material shippers against using.

The fees would pay to clean up hazardous-material spills, to move tracks that handle large volumes of hazardous material and to hire more railroad inspectors. Brown’s bill earmarks about $45 million over three years to train first responders near rail lines that carry large quantities of hazardous material.

Earlier this year, federal regulators tightened rules on newly manufactured tank cars but did not require shippers to immediately remove the old cars.

“(The rule) probably didn’t go far enough,” Brown said on Tuesday at the site of a 2012 derailment and explosion near the state fairgrounds. “If it’s a threat to public safety, they probably need to be off the rails.”

The federal rule will phase out or require retrofitting of thousands of the oldest tank cars that carry crude oil by 2018. Another wave of the oil-carrying tankers would have to change by 2020.

Some of the tank cars that aren’t carrying crude oil would not be replaced or retrofitted until 2025.

Brown’s proposal calls for a tax credit for companies that upgrade their tank cars to the new federal standard in the next three years.

Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers trade association, said his organization would oppose the fee structure Brown proposed.....  more here

The Making of an Energy Ghetto  

Utilities efforts to turn back the clean-energy revolution would block low-income communities from realizing the benefits

Earthtalk       Denise Fairchild      07/01/2015

The clean-energy revolution is underway, and so is the war against it. As with every other major economic transition, this battle will have winners and losers. For low-income communities of color, the stakes are especially high: Will they reap the benefits of the emerging clean-energy economy or will they be locked into energy ghettos?

 

Here’s the context. Renewable energy — solar and wind — is quickly replacing fossil fuels as the preferred energy source. It is now cheaper than coal and most other fossil fuels. Innovative financing mechanisms have eliminated out-of-pocket costs for installing these technologies, enabling homeowners to save and even earn money from energy production. For example, “net metering” lets solar-powered households sell their surplus energy back to the grid for a profit — sending their electric meters spinning counterclockwise.

The utility sector is not happy with these developments, and it is fighting back. A recent Washington Post article cites utilities’ efforts to influence legislators, state public service commissions and — of particular concern — minority organizations. They want to eliminate net metering and assess households with solar-power systems a monthly surcharge to offset the utilities’ sunk capital investments and maintenance costs. And they have convinced some minority organizations that, without the surcharge, the poor will pay more through rate hikes as clean-energy and net-metering schemes benefit only well-to-do families.

This is a specious argument with potentially dangerous and unfortunate consequences, particularly for low-income residents. Eliminating net metering or placing a surcharge on households that migrate off the grid would foster a two-tiered energy society. These steps would render solar power unaffordable for low-income households, locking in historical racial and class hierarchies. The problems are analogous to the forces that created and sustained central-city ghettos.....   more here

 

CA Passes Ambitious Energy Laws; Ikea Commits $1.13 Billion to Fight Climate Change

California passes ambitious laws on emissions and energy efficiency

More electricity from renewables, fewer gasoline-powered vehicles and lower power consumption by buildings mandated under ‘50-50-50’ agenda

Californian lawmakers want 50% of electricity from renewables and 50% less petroleum used on the roads by 2030. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images

The Guardian   Anita Chabria  3 June 2015 modified on Thursday 4 June 2015

California lawmakers have passed a dozen ambitious environmental and energy bills setting high goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum use, and creating new standards for energy efficiency.

Dubbed the California climate leadership package, the 12 bills represent a Democratic-driven push in the Senate to advance an agenda of technological innovation and conservation that was put into play by an executive order by California Governor Jerry Brown in April. The package will next move to the assembly for debate.

One of the cornerstones of the program is SB 350, which calls for a “50-50-50” reduction in major areas of climate concern. It mandates a 50% reduction in petroleum use by vehicles by 2030, the equivalent of removing 36m cars and trucks from the road.

It also calls for 50% of the state’s electricity supply to be derived from renewable resources by that date, and 50% better energy efficiency in buildings through retrofits and upgrades.

“California has demonstrated our global climate leadership over the last decade,” said Senate president Kevin de Leon after the passage of SB 350. “These policies will further cement our leadership, further strengthen our economy and protect the health of our communities.”....    more here

IKEA Commits $1.13 Billion to Fight Climate Change and Invest in Renewable Energy

Lorraine Chow | June 4, 2015     EcoWatch

IKEA, a company known for its ready-to-assemble furniture, is also a leader in renewable energy and climate mitigation. The Swedish furniture giant today announced a massive $1.13 billion commitment to address the effects of global warming in developing countries.

IKEA is pledging $1.13 billion on renewable energy solutions, such as wind and solar, to support families and communities most impacted by climate change.

According to an announcement, the generous measure was made to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy and to support the communities most at risk. The massive $1.13 billion total is made up of combined pledges from the IKEA Group and the IKEA Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the group. The majority of the commitment (around $560 million) will be invested in wind energy and around $110 million is expected to be invested in solar up to 2020.

“Climate change is one of the world’s biggest challenges and we need bold commitments and action to find a solution,” said Peter Agnefjäll, IKEA Group president and CEO. “That’s why we are going all in to transform our business, to ensure that it is fit for the future and we can have a positive impact. This includes going 100 percent for renewable energy, by investing in wind and solar, and converting all our lighting products to affordable LED bulbs, helping many millions of households to live a more sustainable life at home.”

IKEA said it’s on track to become energy independent, producing as much renewable energy as it consumes in its buildings. The company, which has invested around $1.7 billion in wind and solar since 2009, has also committed to owning and operating 314 offsite wind turbines and has installed 700,000 solar panels on its buildings.....    more here

Other links:

North Dakota increases oil well inspections on flood threat

 

06/03/2015   By JAMES MacPHERSON     Fire Engineering

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota regulators increased oil well inspections Wednesday because of flood threats and have told operators near the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers to take precautions. Four nearby wells that have flooded in the past were being shut down as a precaution. Forecasters said recent rains could cause the water level near Williston to exceed the flood stage of 22 feet by the weekend...... more here
State denies permit for Baltimore crude oil terminal   By Jeff Barker    Baltimore Sun     June 3, 2015 The state Department of the Environment has denied, for now, a Houston-based company's application to permit crude oil to be shipped through its port of Baltimore terminal in Fairfield — a proposal that nearby residents say poses a safety threat.  ....     more here Pacific Northwest is likely the next big hub for oil and gas Puget Sound Business Journal

Senator Cantwell: “The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing…”

Senator Cantwell: “The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing…”

May 1, 2015 Roger Straw    Benicia Independent

Senator Cantwell Press Release
[Editor:  For the full text of the 395-page rule, see http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/final-rule-flammable-liquids-by-rail_0.pdf.  – RS]

Cantwell Statement on DOT Crude-by-Rail Safety Rules

May 1, 2015

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) issued the following statement on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s new rules governing the safety of oil train tank cars.

“The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars. It’s more of a status quo rule than the real safety changes needed to protect the public and first responders.”

In March following four fiery derailments involving oil trains, Cantwell introduced the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act of 2015 with Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). The legislation requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to establish new regulations to mitigate the volatility of gases in crude oil shipped via tank car. It also would immediately halt the use of older-model tank cars at high risk for puncturing and catching fire in derailments, as well approving $40 million for first responder training programs to improve emergency response procedures.

Please share!

Also see related: 

NY Times: U.S. Sets New Rules for Oil Trains – Sen. Schumer: DOT gave railroads too much time to remove unsafe cars

.... The rules state that the oldest, least safe tank cars should be replaced within three years with new cars that have thicker shells, higher safety shields and better fire protection. A later generation of tank cars, built since 2011 with more safety features, will have to be retrofitted or replaced by 2020....

NEW REGULATIONS: DOT Canada joint announcement  – Comments and notes    By Dr. Fred Millar, May 1 2015    Benicia Independent

Petition to Ban the Bomb Trains

 

House approves $279 million renewable energy cut

Also raises funding for fossil fuel research by $34 million

Friends of the Earth      May. 1, 2015   Kate Colwell 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2028, “The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016,” by a vote of 240-177.

The bill sets funding levels for important programs within the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior, and the Army Corps of Engineers. While staying within the limits set by the sequester, the bill manages to raise funding for fossil fuel research by $34 million from 2015 levels while cutting renewable energy and efficiency research by $279 million. Simultaneously, it is packed with policy riders that undermine bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to study the dangers of hydraulic fracturing.  

Friends of the Earth Climate and Energy Campaigner Lukas Ross issued the following statement in response:

Shoveling more of our tax dollars into the pockets of ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers while defunding clean energy is climate denial at its worst. Fossil fuel interests don’t need more money. Solutions to the climate crisis do.

From hobbling the Clean Water Act to limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to even study fracking, House Speaker John Boehner is continuing his assault on the air we breathe and the water we drink.