Comment Log Display

Comment Log Display

Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 15 for Energy Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-energy-ws) - 1st Workshop.


First Name: David
Last Name: Assmann
Email Address: David.Assmann@sfgov.org
Affiliation: City and County of San Francisco

Subject: City of San Francisco Comments on Electricity and Natural Gas
Comment:
The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes that some local governments are
already very active in this field; however, many are not. 
Everything needs to be done to build the capacity of local
governments to take action, not only in their own facilities, but
to participate in the reduction of GHG´s throughout their
jurisdictions.  First, Climate Change needs to be brought to the
attention of local elected officials.  CARB and the Governor´s
Office should sponsor workshops with elected officials of every
city and county in California.  This could be done in ten or so
regional meetings.  ARB, the Governor, the corresponding members
of the state legislature, and local elected officials should meet
to discuss the goals, the how this will impact their jurisdiction,
their role, how to build their capacity in each local government,
and how to build support in their jurisdictions.  Second, they
need assistance with the ability to take action.  Technical
assistance can be made available through contracts at the CEC and
regional workshops and mentoring can be sponsored by ARB.

ARB expects the value of GHG emissions reduction to be determined
through a market mechanism of offset trading; however, there are
many activities that will not be part of the trading system due to
the difficulty of documenting and monitoring ‘additionality’ and
other necessary trading criteria.  The Draft Scoping Plan stresses
the need to expand energy efficiency and renewable energy programs;
however, these are investment decisions that are made based on the
value of those reductions.  Given the vastly destructive
‘potential’ of Climate Change, previously calculated values are
undoubtedly too low to have much impact on investment decisions.  
For example, the CPUC sets energy efficiency cost-effectiveness
criteria that affect the investments made by PGC funded programs. 
That calculation must include what reductions can save in Climate
Change impacts, ie avoided costs incurred on the ‘adaptation’
side.  

New statewide requirements for existing buildings must be
addressed through a combination of time-of-sale requirements as
well as ‘date certain’ approaches.  Air-sealing, ceiling and wall
insulation, and solar water heating can dramatically reduce
natural gas use.  Development of these requirements can leverage
existing experience of local ordinances and enforcement will
require active participation of all local governments. 
Additionally, the real estate, remodeling, and repair industries
should be engaged by CARB and the Governor´s Office to enlist
their participation.  In the future, contractor or other State
licensing should be contingent upon certification in GHG reduction
and monitoring of each license recipient’s activity. 

The State Board of Education needs to be engaged in the
development and implementation of Climate Change curriculum as
well as incorporation into the testing requirements.  Teachers and
schools are frequently overwhelmed by existing requirements and
view ‘new requirements’ as just more work. Climate Change can be
incorporated into existing work but in some cases it may mean
supplanting existing activities.  Teachers and schools need
direction from the State Board.

Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-07-30 18:23:53



If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.


Board Comments Home

preload