Comment Log Display

SFUSD has 55K students, 54% of which are on the federal
free-and-reduced lunch program, and over 120 school sites. Our
staff and students use and dispose of tons of food and supplies
each day. Our buildings consumer 1,5M therms of gas, 32,5M kWh of
electricity, and 125,000 CCF of water each year. In addition to our
25 school buses, parents are shuttling their kids to school via
car, criss crossing our city due to the choice assignment system
and generating 20-25% of the morning traffic. Our vast expanses of
blacktop soak up the sun and reject stormwater instead of doing
exactly the opposite.

Thankfully, the citizens and government in SF provide my
Sustainability Office with the resources and support to make a
difference:
1. Our Department of the Environment pays for my position, provides
in-class environmental education, and works with schools to achieve
our phenomenal 65% diversion rate.
2. Our public utilities commission (SFPUC) pays for a school
conservation manager, bottle filling stations, rooftop solar
projects, and grants for stormwater management.
3. Our municipal transit agency (SFMTA) is providing us with a
transportation planner this year to help us reduce our 48% student
drive-alone rate.

But what do other districts do with less funding and support at
their disposal?
How can the State expect to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without
educating the future (and current) users of energy?
How can the investment plan be silent on ways to reduce energy in
the largest school system in the country?

That's why I'm calling on the CARB investment plan to beef up its
funding for school-based projects that reduce energy usage while
modeling conservation for students and the school community.
Schools are a perfect place to reach disadvantaged citizens and to
implement integrated projects that achieve benefits beyond GHG
reductions:
- If you're planting trees, why not provide shade for students at
lunch?
- If you're cleaning up tailpipe emissions, why not remove the
carbon black from school buses that has such health impacts on poor
communities?
- If you're upgrading buildings, why not start with schools so that
our budget-starved school systems can spend money on supplies and
programs instead of utilities.

Prop 39 has been a great catalyst for school energy projects but
its SIR requirements have encouraged schools to cherry-pick the
low-hanging fruit that will make future retrofits really expensive.
Any funding mechanism you develop needs to encourage deep retrofits
over simple fixes so that we truly keep our 2030 goals in mind.