Department of the Environment

 Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force

• LISTEN
• TEXT ONLY
• PRINT
• A
• A
• A

April 15, 2008 Approved

TASK FORCE MEMBERS:  Jeanne-Marie Rosenmeier (Chair), Bernard Meyerson (Vice-Chair), Patricia Gerber, Richard Katz, Jan Lundberg, Jason Mark; (1 Vacant).

 

ORDER OF BUSINESS 

1.        Call to Order and Roll Call.  The Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force convened at 5:03 p.m.  Present: Chair Rosenmeier, Vice-Chair Meyerson, Members Gerber, Katz and Mark (5:07 p.m.) (Excused:  Member Lundberg). 

 

2.        Approval of the April 1, 2008 Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force Regular Meeting Draft Minutes.  Upon Motion by Vice-Chair Meyerson and second by Member Katz, the April 1, 2008 Meeting Minutes were approved without objection (Absent:  Members Lundberg and Mark) (Explanatory Document:  April 1, 2008 Draft Minutes (HTML) http://sfgov.org/site/sfenvironment_page.asp?id=78661 (Discussion and Action).

 

3.        Presentation by Wade Crowfoot of the Mayor's Office on his Climate Change role (Informational Presentation and Discussion).

 

Mr. Crowfoot reported on his environmental policy background and focus for the past few years on generalized government affairs; e.g., moving legislation through the Board of Supervisors, the local Commissions, and state and federal delegations.  It was explained that the Mayor felt that departments would move environmental initiatives forward if there were a point person from the Mayor’s Office assigned to help in this effort.  Mr. Crowfoot reported that he has been working on this effort since January and has put together a strategic plan for decreasing the City’s carbon emissions in the context of climate protection. It was stated that San Francisco can and should be the model for other cities in reducing carbon emissions.

 

Mr. Crowfoot distributed a handout (Explanatory Document: San Francisco Green House Gas Emissions Presentation (PDF) http://web1.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfenvironment/meetings/poptf/supporting/2008/SFGreenhouseGasEmissionsPres.pdf). 

on (1) San Francisco greenhouse gas emissions broken down by percentages of emissions caused by transportation and building energy categories and (2) current efforts/programs to address climate change in San Francisco. It was reported that 51% of San Francisco’s emissions from the 1990 baseline are transportation related, and 49% are as a result of building energy.  Transportation emissions include MUNI buses and rail (1%), municipal fleet (1%), San Francisco road vehicles (24%), Intraregional Road Vehicles (23%), and Rail (BART, Caltrain, and Ferry-2%).  Building energy emissions include industrial (10%), municipal (4%), commercial (16%), and residential—energy used in homes (19%).  It was explained that the bulk of transportation related emissions are from single-occupancy vehicles, and the best environmental thing to do is to use public or alternative transportation.  Mr. Crowfoot indicated that San Francisco has a lower portion of industrial carbon based emissions than other communities because our business community is more service oriented than industrial.  It was explained that out of all emissions in San Francisco, City government accounts for 6% and residents and businesses is 94%. It was stated that the City can work on internal policies on our city fleet and buildings and should be the early adopters, but it is important to engage residents and businesses.

 

Mr. Crowfoot reported that the City’s Climate Action Plan passed in 2004 has an eight-year goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2012.  The City has made some progress in that it went from an upwards trend of carbon emissions to a downward trend.  The challenge is (as of 2005) that the downward trend needs to be accelerated through new policies. The Public Utilities Commission changed the purchase of their peak power from fossil fuel to geothermal, and there are additional changes that are headed in the right direction, but the City and elected officials have to do more.

 

Mr. Crowfoot reported that in order to address climate change in San Francisco measures are being taken in two major areas--transportation and building energy:

 

·        Transportation includes (1) improving MUNI through the Transit Effectiveness Project and new transit developments (shift resources and routes to get more reliability from MUNI), (2) advancing the City’s bicycle network (legal injunction not to advance bike improvements, monthly working group working on an improvement plan once the injunction is lifted to double the City’s bike network), (3) completing and implementing the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan (long term improvements for walkers in the City), (4) Congestion Pricing (managing congestion through a congestion management fee for driving in certain areas in San Francisco—alternatives are being considered), (5) greening cars (City’s fleet, taxis, rental cars, private cars—incentivizing the use of alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in hybrids), (6) biodiesel and alternative fuels (SFPUC’s restaurant fats, oil and grease collection/recycling program; plan to create an-city processing City facility for waste, Fats Oil and Grease Ordinance, City fleet use of B20 blends), (7) promoting commuting alternatives through public policy (commuter alternatives outreach, mandate commuter benefits program), and (8) SF Carbon Fund to fund a carbon offset program (Rainbow Grocery biofuel pump installation).

 

·        Building Energy includes (1) increasing San Francisco’s renewable energy portfolio through (a) community choice aggregation, (b) solar (rebate programs, SF SolarMap), (c) wind (creation of a Residential Wind Energy Task Force to work on changing local codes to install wind turbines locally, PUC testing sites, wind map, offshore wind), and (d) emerging technologies such as ocean (tidal and wave; possible foundation funding to install physical testing technology off Ocean Beach), and geothermal (two pilots, ground source heat pumps, and a PUC pilot on deep well boring technology).  Mr. Crowfoot explained that building a renewable energy portfolio also address environmental justice goals as it relates to health issues and pollution concerns in the southeast sector of San Francisco.

 

Additional building energy measures include (1) green building standards (pending Board legislation that would create the strongest green building standards for private buildings in the country, for both residential and commercial, new buildings and retrofits); (2) major developments oriented toward green systems, use of sustainability systems (Treasure Island, Hunters Point redevelopment, redevelopment of public housing complexes); (3)  energy efficiency initiative for city buildings to decrease energy usage; (4) outreach to local residents and businesses for energy efficiency programs (Department of the Environment’s small business retrofit lighting program), and (5) carbon tax on building energy (tax for high energy usage, decrease payroll tax as a carbon related trade off).

 

Vice-Chair Meyerson suggested that telecommuting be considered as a viable commuting alternative. Member Katz discussed the feasibility of solar hot water programs. Ms. Capria reported that the state is offering rebates in areas such as San Diego and may be offering additional rebates in other areas in the future. It was explained that Ms. Johanna Partin, the Department of the Environment’s Renewable Energy Manager has been exploring solar hot water for the carbon fund. Mr. Crowfoot reported that Israel had passed a law twenty years ago requiring residents to install solar water heaters on their roof, and that every rooftop has one that heats all of the hot water. 

 

Vice-Chair Meyerson discussed how climate change and peak oil intersect and recommended other focus areas that cities should consider such as moving towards a survival mode if there were to be water, food and power shortages.  Mr. Crowfoot recommended that the Task Force raise issues about adaptation in San Francisco as it relates to climate change and peak oil.  Member Gerber recommended establishing a policy that all city employees commute by BART, MUNI, bicycle, but not by car a minimum of two days a week.  A discussion was held on the success of Paris’s bike sharing program and how that could be implemented in San Francisco.  Mr. Crowfoot discussed the contract to redevelop the City’s bus shelters and adding language to the contract that would create a bike-sharing program.  Member Gerber commended the idea of micromanaging the City fleet as it relates to personal car usage. 

 

Member Gerber reported that certain stretches of coastal real estate were being claimed by PG&E and Chevron for the wave program, and as a result Sonoma County passed legislation to claim all of Sonoma’s shoreline for future generation so PG&E and Chevron can’t claim the shore. Member Gerber recommended that San Francisco claim its shoreline for itself as well. .It was recommended that The Party’s Over be read to better understand the implications of peak oil. A discussion was held about the Bayview neighborhood project to replace the existing power plant with combustion turbines. Member Gerber explained that combustion turbines are not a good idea as it is based on the assumption that natural gas would continue to be available to fuel the turbine, but peak oil says it may not.

 

Ms. Capria reported that work is being done with Mr. Ben Jordan from Biofuels Cooperative and Rainbow Grocery to install a biodiesel pump fueled exclusively by waste grease.  It was explained that right now they have a mobile fueling truck that comes in once or twice a week for a limited time and that program is going to end. The current program would be to install a permanent station at that location that is exclusively waste grease that would be funded through the SF Carbon Fund, so any offsets associated with that fuel would be put in that carbon fund.  It was explained that in San Francisco, biofuels can only be purchased through a users group, so anybody that would be purchasing from this pump would be signing up to the Biofuels Cooperative Agreement.  Language would be built into the agreement that offsets would be retired in San Francisco.  Then once methodology, how to monitor and verify is determined, the program could expand beyond one that just applies to city officials. Ms. Capria also discussed the carbon offset program’s pilot phase which would be associated with municipal air travel, so when City officials take trips they would be required to put a certain amount aside into a carbon fund. 

 

4.        Revisit of Division of Labor on Final Report in light of new appointee (Discussion).  Continued to the May 6, 2008 meeting.

 

5.        Presentation of Transportation Section Outline (Informational Presentation and Discussion).   Member Katz presented the Transportation Section outline of the final report and discussed the definition of transportation as it relates to the Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force.  Task Force members provided their input into elements of the plan, and Member Katz requested that members and Ms. Capria bring additional opinions on transportation parameters for discussion to the May 6 meeting or email ideas to the Task Force Secretary. The four parts that were discussed included: (Explanatory Document: Draft Outline (Word)—reference explanatory document for an outline description http://web1.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfenvironment/meetings/poptf/supporting/2008/TFTransportationOutline042508.doc):

 

·        Use in the Transportation Sector:An assessment of the current realities for oil and gas that we're presently using for all types of transit.

·         Analysis of Energy Vulnerabilities

·        Best Case Energy Scenarios—modes of transport

·        Recommendations: what is reasonably possible?

 

Public Comment

 

Mr. Cal Simone discussed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and recommended investigating the type of accommodations that would be made for bicycles. Committee members discussed ideas that included Bike Rapid Transit, bike overpasses, underpasses, bike cloverleaves, Portland’s idea that some of the light traffic streets become pedestrian and bike streets, and Berkeley’s bicycle boulevards.

 

Vice-Chair Meyerson left the meeting at this time.

 

Mr. David Pilpel suggested that the Task Force consult with other City groups dealing with related issues so as not to duplicate efforts.  It was recommended that the Task Force focus on how to be energy independent locally to minimize transportation impacts—e.g. grease that is transported out of town to be processed and then bringing the biodiesel back into town.  Mr. Pilpel suggested contacting the State Energy Commission, Bay Area Air Quality District and Air Resources Board who may have useful information on sources of pollution.  It was also recommended that the Task Force not provide too much detail on street redesign; e.g., there is a Better Streets initiative that is already working on this effort; and a Bike Plan that is already in place and does not have to be redone.  Member Mark stated that the Task Force could add recommendations and endorse reports that are currently in place. Chair Rosenmeier stated that part of the Task Force’s charge is to indicate how peak oil would impact or intersect with these other plans.

 

Mr. Nick Parsons asked if there is a list of Commissions or relevant initiatives. Chair Rosenmeier reported that there is a list of Commissions.  Ms. Capria stated that the Department of the Environment’s website contains past and current legislation and initiatives that could be referenced. Task Force members discussed the relevant Commissions and plans/initiatives that should be consulted for the transportation section of the report. Chair Rosenmeier recommended that a presentation be given on the Transit Effectiveness Project.  Ms. Capria suggested that Peter Albert, SFMTA Planning Director be invited to make a presentation.

    

6.        Reassignment of Draft Resolution on City control of shoreline for tidal and wave energy programs (Discussion) (10 minutes).  Member Gerber offered to prepare an interim recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor for San Francisco to claim its shoreline for tidal and wave energy programs.  Ms. Capria suggested referencing Sonoma County ’s legislation and indicated that she would forward information to Ms. Partin, the Department’s Renewable Energy Manager.

 

Public Comment:  Mr. David Pilpel suggested contacting Ms. Theresa Mueller, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office and/or the Energy Commission to inquire whether San Francisco already has a claim to its shoreline and to request additional information about the status of tidal and wave programs.  Member Gerber explained that no other county other than Sonoma has claimed their shoreline at this time.

 

7.        New Business/Future Agenda Items (Discussion).  Member Mark reported that the design charette with San Francisco food security activists is scheduled directly after the next Task Force Meeting on Tuesday, May 6 from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. at the Main Library, Latino Community Meeting Room A.  The intent is to bring community folks that have already been working on increasing food production in San Francisco together to think of possibilities for increasing food production locally. Member Gerber recommended that a discussion be held at the May 20 Task Force meeting to consider issuing two interim recommendations: (1) to oppose the Bayview Potrero Hill peaker plant installation to replace the existing Mirant plant because it would be run on an assumption that natural gas would readily be available; and (2) that City employees be required to commute to work by a low-carbon method a minimum of two days a week regardless of geography, but with an exemption for disabilities. Member Mark stated that he would rather spend more time brainstorming how to make the final report have more of an impact than issuing interim recommendations.  Chair Rosenmeier stated that she would be presenting an outline on the Economy section of the report at the May 6 meeting.

 

8.        Public Comments:  Members of the public may address the Task Force on matters that are within the Task Force’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda. Mr. David Pilpel stated that departments working on projects should consult with other departments that the project may have an impact on. It was recommended that the Task Force’s final report cross departmental lines and issue specific recommendations that legislators would pay attention to. Member Mark reported that he had invited several departments that have land use responsibilities to the food charette meeting at the Main Library.

 

9.        Adjournment:  The Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force adjourned at 7:17 p.m.

 

Approved:  May 6, 2008