Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 7, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
The City Council is placing a measure on the March 3 ballot that would force the DWP to put solar panels on government buildings. Critics say DWP officials should have been consulted first.
Opinion:
My View: Carbon bank demands an honest accountant
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The City Council is placing a measure on the March 3 ballot that would force the DWP to put solar panels on government buildings. Critics say DWP officials should have been consulted first.
By David Zahniser
A plan for adding 400 megawatts of solar power throughout
The L.A. City Council plans to vote today to put a measure on the March 3 ballot ordering the DWP to place solar panels on the roofs and parking lots of government, commercial and industrial buildings by 2014.
The plan has come under fire from former DWP commission president Nick Patsaouras, who said it lacks an outside cost analysis and is being rushed to the ballot. Ratepayers will see their electrical bills go up 24% between 2006 and 2010 and cannot handle much more, he said.
"We are going to chase the middle class away from the city," said Patsaouras, who is running for city controller.
DWP General Manager H. David Nahai said he won't have a detailed financial analysis of the $3-billion solar plan until after it goes on the ballot. But his preliminary figures assume the initiative will attract $1.5 billion in federal tax credits -- money that would keep rate hikes to no more than 4% in 2011 or 2012.
If extra savings are found, the rate hikes would be limited to 2%, Nahai said.
The rate hikes could reach 8% if the city fails to secure its tax credits and other savings, according to the DWP's cost formula. But DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo called that scenario "highly unlikely."
"There are ways to structure this so that you can get the tax credits. It's not an iffy thing," he said.
The solar ballot measure was drafted by an advocacy group headed by two high-level officials with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union that represents DWP workers. Under the proposal, the solar panels would be owned by the DWP and installed by the utility's employees.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council rushed to embrace the solar plan, bypassing the DWP commission and the city's network of neighborhood councils. The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which plays a pivotal role in local elections, favors the ballot measure, saying it will create thousands of new "green jobs."
The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce offered a different view, calling the solar plan a "backroom deal" that excludes private-sector solar companies from participating. When the council voted to draft the ballot language, it did not receive favorable testimony from a single environmental group.
Under the proposal, the DWP's new solar panels would generate enough electricity to power 100,000 homes. DWP officials said the average residential ratepayer will experience only a minor financial hit from the solar program.
A 2% increase would add $1.88 to the average monthly bill, which is currently $69.50. A 4% increase would add $2.78, while an 8% increase would add $5.56 to the monthly bill.
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, a backer of the solar program, said DWP officials have assured her that ratepayers won't see increases until 2011, and that any increases will be small.
"They have said they are confident with these numbers," said Greuel, who is running against Patsaouras for city controller.
Meanwhile, current City Controller Laura Chick voiced dismay that the council bypassed the mayor's own appointees.
"I'm in a state of shock that something this important, that is all about the DWP, has not been vetted by their commission in public hearings," she said.#
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar7-2008nov07,0,4481660.story
Opinion:
My View: Carbon bank demands an honest accountant
By Laurie Wayburn
Laurie Wayburn is president and co-founder of the
Recent polls indicate that almost 90 percent of Californians support protecting forests because they naturally remove global warming pollution from the atmosphere. The good news is that the state's Air Resources Board, charged with implementing
The board's challenge is to ensure that the true climate benefits of forests are accounted for accurately, realistically and over time. Getting these numbers right is the key to success. Failure to do so will have serious consequences for our forests – and the climate benefits that we need from them.
Forests have a natural role in regulating our climate and can be managed like a growing, long-term "carbon bank." They use photosynthesis to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester, or hold, it as carbon for very long periods of time. The older forests are, the more carbon they hold. That is why
Keeping track of forest carbon requires double-entry bookkeeping: Trees absorb carbon through photosynthesis when they grow. But when trees are cut down faster than they grow back and forests are cleared for development, most of that stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, and our bank is depleted.
In other words, depleting our forests actually contributes dramatically to climate change. In fact, forest loss and depletion is the second largest source of global carbon emissions.
The board's current plan rightly recognizes the value of our forests as carbon banks by proposing a target of "no net loss" of forest carbon while seeking to increase net savings in our carbon banks. The plan also recognizes that forests have a role in meeting climate goals in other sectors, like land-use, construction and energy.
The fact that many sectors rely on forests presents an accounting challenge. For example, right now the plan only addresses the climate benefits of burning wood as a low-carbon biomass fuel in the energy sector without taking into account the climate cost of harvesting that wood in the forest sector.
It's like having a family checkbook, where different family members can write checks from the same account – in this case, the same carbon storage bank. Someone needs to know what everyone is drawing from the account in order to maintain a healthy balance and ensure that we don't exceed the limit.
When it meets Nov. 20 to finalize the plan for implementing Assembly Bill 32, the Air Resources Board should add provisions for much tighter accounting for all forest-related climate costs and benefits. They must require that any impacts on forests' carbon banks are accurately tracked across different sectors, like the family checkbook, so we can track unwanted withdrawals. This will give us "accounting with accountability" and the ability to clearly identify the causes of unexpected gains or losses and to respond accordingly with forest management that maximizes climate benefits and minimizes losses.
The plan also needs to take a long-term view. Forests increase their carbon stores as they get older, much like compound interest in a bank account. Clearing our forests to generate more products, like woody biomass, might look like a big win for climate in the first few years. But when we factor in the long-term, compounded impact of lost carbon storage, it's likely a climate disaster.
Conserving and restoring our forests using sustainable management that increases carbon stores over time should be central to
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1377772.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment