I am interested in Berkeley's behavior with regard to streetlights. I have not been able to find anything in Berkeley's Climate Action Plan about strategies for reducing the huge costs and greenhouse gas contributions of streetlights.

What is Berkeley doing to curtail energy use and costs associated with streetlights?

Also, have you heard of the company Streetlight Intelligence Inc.?

Apparently Calgary, Canada, like Berkeley, has a " progressive climate action plan." Please see http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2008/23/c7586.html

Thanks for your time and attention.

First--thanks for the great work that has gone into this plan. I'd like to suggest an additional Implementing Action. It is currently extremely difficult to get a grey water system approved in the City of Berkeley. We obviously have a public interest in regulating what ends up in the water table, so we need to have oversight of this, but if the regulations are too restrictive, too complicated, and too onerous, people will set these things up illegally, and we're going to have a big ugly and toxic mess on our hands. The drier things get, the more desperate people will be to take matters into their own hands. It is already starting to happen. The City has got to examine this. Do not be satisfied with simply sticking with the codes the way they are. This is the time to make codes serve the true public interest: it has to be do-able, workable and enforceable. Another dry winter, and we will see hoses start sprouting out of every back window.

The Berkeley Oil Independence Task Force deeply appreciates the efforts of city staff and other contributors to the draft Climate Action Plan. On the whole, the Task Force is in strong agreement with the goals and recommendations set forth in the plan and, in particular, with the nearly car-free vision articulated in Chapter 3. The Task Force offers a few suggestions for the final CAP:

1. The CAP includes a brief discussion of local food security in the context of its peak oil overview. Local, sustainably-produced food is not only a peak oil issue—agriculture is one of the top contributors to global warming, and Berkeley residents can dramatically reduce their emissions by eating more local, organic, unprocessed, plant-based foods. As such, the issue of food warrants its own chapter. For a start, the CAP might reference the dormant Berkeley Food Policy. Another excellent resource is the San Francisco Foodshed Assessment just released by the American Farmland Trust and SAGE.

2. Double up on public education efforts by including peak oil and gas awareness in the new residents welcome package and other educational outreach materials.

3. The proposed fee for plastic shopping bags can be effective, but why not simply ban plastic bags as San Francisco has done? Whatever the case, fee or ban, the Task Force recommends extending the deterrent to paper bags as well, so that cloth bags become the norm. Another quick and effective consumer behavior fix would be a towel surcharge at the YMCA and other gyms (so as to encourage patrons to bring their own towels).

4. The City can reduce waste and save money by canceling any and all of its bottled water contracts.

5. The proposed Transportation Services Fee can be an effective way of deterring wasteful consumption and raising revenue, though it is not apparent from the CAP in what manner such a fee would be imposed. The Task Force supports user fees on excessive fossil fuel consumption (electricity, gasoline, propane, etc.) so long as safeguards are in place to ensure that low-income residents are given free energy-efficiency products and services and are fully or partially exempt from taxes and fees.

6. The East Bay Green Corridor, in concept, offers the Bay Area a unique opportunity to relocalize its agricultural and manufacturing industries. The Task Force urges Berkeley to take a strong leadership role in giving teeth to this idea and recommends that the CAP include target dates and goals for implementation of the Green Corridor.

7. In light of the anticipated short time-frame for peak oil and gas, the Task Force believes that updates to this plan should be made every two years.

On page 179 the CAP has these goals for transportation for the disabled:

"Continue to enhance mobility options for people with disabilities by

expanding existing paratransit, car share, and taxi services."

While these are appropriate goals for the city, only the car share alternative would have any positive impact on reaching our GHG reduction goals. Taxis and paratransit are no better environmentally than privates autos, and may be worse. The best way for our disabled community to make a positive contribution is to use "mainstream" transportation options as much as possible -- regular transit service.

For that to happen well, transit systems should provide "universal access" (roll-on/roll-off boarding for wheelchairs and stepless entry for the mobility impaired). This is far better than the minimal "ADA-compliant" system of awkward lifts that delay buses on their routes.

The BART system already provides universal access today, and Bus Rapid Transit will do so in the future if we approve such projects.

To encourage that, the CAP should include a policy statement such as:

"Encourage our disabled community to make more use of energy-efficient regular transit service (instead of just energy-inefficient paratransit and taxis) by ensuring that all future transit upgrades include universal-access boarding."

On p. 33 the CAP says we should "direct any new development to locations that are close to transit and have retail and other services within walking distance."

On p. 34 the CAP says "Locating compact residential development and neighborhood-serving retail development along the same transit corridors represents an integrated strategy for reducing VMT and increasing other mobility options. More retail options provide residents, workers, and transit riders with more convenient access to services, while more residents and workers translate into more customers for local stores and services."

These are both good ideas, but in addition to new residential density NEAR improved transit, we also need new neighborhood-oriented retail near existing housing that is NOT well served by transit.

Let's call that "pedestrian-oriented shopping" within reach of EXISTING residential neighborhoods -- and decouple it from any necessary connection to existing transit. Areas without good transit are much more likely to require auto trips for shopping, increasing VMT.

Two current good examples: the Monterey Market area on Hopkins and the Westbrae district on Gilman between Peralta and Cornell. Both have only minimal transit service in the form of the infrequent Route 9 bus.

The Monterey Market area is thriving with a diversified set of food-oriented businesses and a large set of walk-in (as well as many drive-in) customers. The Westbrae area is clearly underdeveloped: anchored by two restaurants, an organic grocery and two takeout bakeries, it also features two out-of-place auto repair stores and an actual undeveloped 1800 sf commercial lot. Westbrae has the potential to become another pedestrian-serving retail/mixed-use hub meeting daily needs for about 4,000 residents within walking distance who are not likely to have good transit service in the near future.

The CAP should, therefore, emphasize "infill walk-in retail" without regard to transit corridors. The following policy statement would help that:

"In order to improve the livability of EXISTING walkable residential neighborhoods that do not enjoy major transit service, and in the process reduce VMT,

1. favor the development of in-fill neighborhood retail oriented to basic daily needs, especially where good transit is unavailable.

2. Especially favor the return of neighborhood-scale groceries on the model of the Westbrae Natural Grocery, along with "corner food stores," rather than building more large-scale auto-oriented supermarkets.

3. Look for opportunities to provide at least some non-auto-dependent food shopping -- such as farmers markets or coop food delivery plans -- to our hills districts."

In the 20s, 30s and 40s, when Berkeley enjoyed actual good transit service to and through many residential neigborhoods in our foothill and hillside districts , the City developed an extensive network of pedestrian pathways that are still in place today (www.berkeleypaths.org).

These paths were built to provide "vertical" and mostly east-west access from residential neighborhoods to the transit lines (which mostly ran north-south), and were designed to serve as pedestrian feeder routes to active transit nodes. It was much more efficient to walk a block or two up- or down-hill than several blocks to the nearest major street corner.

In more recent years, such transit as still serves the hills pretty thoroughly ignores the path network in favor of traditional stops at major intersections -- almost always at corners.

The CAP should include a policy that favors the return of "paths-oriented transit" to the hills, with stops oriented to mid-block path junctions rather than to street intersections. This would usefully decrease the distance many residents would need to walk to get to a transit stop, increase ridership, and reduce VMT.

I'm disappointed that the current draft of the Berkeley Climate Action Plan has only brief mention of street tree planting, on pp. 116-117.

Tree planting is one of the easier ways for Berkeley to reduce its carbon footprint. As we all know, lots of other aspects of the Climate Action Plan will be more difficult, such as getting people out of their cars. Berkeley's current Urban Forestry program has the goal of planting 500 trees per year, and it's currently lagging behind that rate. Even so, Berkeley's goal is proportionately smaller than those of other cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. I propose that the CAP state explicitly that Berkeley's street tree planting program should be expanded.

Here are some ideas that don't necessarily need mention in the CAP but would support an expansion in tree planting:

-- A nonprofit foundation such as San Francisco's Friends of the Urban Forest could be created to help raise additional funds.

-- Improvement in public outreach. Many Berkeley residents are unaware of the Urban Forestry program. Anytime someone buys a house that has no street tree, the city should send them information about the availability of trees.

-- Developer fees, dedicated to street tree planting.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the amount of detail in this part of the city's plan. But two issues occur to me.

1. BRT is an example of favoring public transportation over "regular" multi-lane thoroughfares. If this trend continues, how are drivers supposed to manage? Suppliers of food and other items for sale in farmers markets and stores are included in that category, as are car-share drivers. It seems certain that hybrid and zero-emission vehicles will get snatched up as soon as they become cheaper and more widely available. But how will they fare on the streets of Berkeley?

I watched a travel show recently, and noticed that the European city featured had both pedestrian-friendly areas and really wide thoroughfares for vehicles.

2. Personal vehicles will be around for a long time. I'd love to buy a Smart Car, but I live in a multi-story dwelling (no place to plug in). Has the city explored the idea of making metered electric-charging stations available for apartment-type dwellers? I'm not saying the city would necessarily pay for such stations--although such stations might conceivably benefit the city, as in providing power to the grid.

Thanks for listening.

Jean Hohl

The discussion in the CAP of ways we might extend good transit to the hills (and other under-served areas) has so far focused on two alternatives; “official” (AC Transit or city-sponsored/owned) shuttle buses (perhaps on an on-demand basis), and more flexible use of taxis for individual riders. We should also consider allowing an additional private-sector solution: jitney service from entrepreneurial providers.

A jitney would be an officially licensed, inspected and insured vehicle with a commercially-licensed driver, such as a 12-passenger van, owned and operated by an individual private operator. The key point is that jitneys would be allowed to CHOOSE THEIR OWN ROUTES, set their own schedules, and solicit their own business – in a way that optimizes their economic return. So a jitney operator might, for example, develop a business around late-night service from downtown to specific hills routes/destinations, or around delivery of a regular clientele between the hills and the Ashby or North Berkeley BART station for the morning and evening commutes. But no official "demand studies" – or massive EIR in advance – would be required.

The “genius of competitive markets” would probably provide transit service far superior to anything that could be officially designed by transit bureaucrats, engineers or accountants.

The Climate Action Plan makes a convincing case for placing high priority on increasing the supply of housing near transit in order to reduce carbon emissions, improve public health, and support a viable downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. I fully support the Plan’s recommended policies and actions (such as those beginning on p. 33, Chp. 3) to encourage development of housing, retail services, and employment in areas of Berkeley best served by transit.

As the Plan points out, living near transit is the single largest influence on vehicle miles traveled, and therefore increasing housing options near transit is a highly effective tool to reduce carbon emissions. But transit routes are limited by topography, there are only three rail stations in Berkeley, and there are finite opportunities for increasing density within walking distance of transit. Steps need to be taken to, in effect, bring existing residents including those in the hills within easier reach of BART.

The plan recommends expanding capacity and service of taxi fleets (p. 48), but at the same time the plan suggests studying potential new services, such as shuttle buses (p. 37 and p. 45). Instead of studying something new and untested, I suggest putting the highest priority on building on infrastructure that already exists, which is the city’s existing taxi fleet. Taxis already provide on-demand service for anyone, including residents of the hills.

Taxis represent an opportunity for reduction of greenhouse gases in two ways. First, the city already regulates taxi service and controls factors such as rates that are charged and the number of vehicles that can provide taxi service. Taxi service has the advantage of being provided by private enterprise, including many individual entrepreneurs.

Secondly, taxis are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Altogether, autos produce nearly half of Berkeley’s greenhouse gases, according to the Climate Action Plan. Taxis tend to be high emitters of greenhouse gases. The EPA rates the gas mileage of an older model Ford Crown Victoria, a typical taxi, at about 15 miles per gallon; actual mileage may be as low as 8 miles per gallon (according to a former Berkeley taxi operator). Thus, one or two taxi trips around Berkeley may produce as many as 20 pounds of carbon or other greenhouse gases. Berkeley allows 120 or more taxis to operate in the city.

Improving taxi service would not only reduce carbon emissions, but also reduce operating costs for the entrepreneurs who operate the vehicles and increase their total business. I suggest the following measures, which could be supported by new fees and other revenue sources, such as those noted on p. 38:

• Assist taxi operators to replace old vehicles with new low-carbon models, perhaps hybrids at first and later electric vehicles.

• As a supplement to the provision of subsidized transit passes (p. 44), consider offering taxi vouchers for reduced fares.

• Assist taxi operators with an improved dispatch system, so that riders can count on a pickup at their home to take them to BART.

• Improve marketing, so riders know who to call for service and what to expect.

• Train drivers so they can easily find addresses in the hills.

• Consider installing bike racks on taxis.

In the Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Implementation Table on p. 59, steps to improve taxi service should be moved to the short-term rather than the medium-term or long-term column, while the proposed step of studying shuttle buses (p. 57) should be moved from short-term to long-term.

In Chp. 3, p. 41, the Climate Action Plan discusses the choice of residents to use transit over a private automobile, but fails to note that use of a mode other than the private automobile is a necessity and not a choice for a significant number of persons. The National Household Travel Survey conducted by the federal Department of Transportation in 2001-02 found that despite the high number of vehicles nationwide (1.9 vehicles versus 1.8 drivers per household), 8 percent of households have no vehicle at all, and 12 percent of persons 15 and over are non-drivers. The CAP should recognize that better transit service and reliable taxi service provide a basic level of service for many residents, rather than simply a choice. Improved transportation options serve not only non-drivers and non-vehicle-owners, but also support the decision of some drivers to give up a vehicle altogether.

The implementing actions to increase bicycling and walking (Chp. 3, p. 50) might include an effort to encourage Berkeley residents to re-think what constitutes a “walkable distance.” The conventional wisdom is that about ten or maybe fifteen minutes is the maximum that people will spend walking from home or their parked car to shopping or a transit station. Although shoppers might walk around Fourth Street for, say, an hour or two, they might never think of walking the half hour that it would take to get from, say, Solano Avenue to downtown. Marketing efforts should help residents to recalibrate their sense of what is a conveniently walkable distance, while perhaps pointing out the irony of, for instance, joining a gym or exercise group and then driving there in a car, while walking is good exercise and free, too.

I fully concur with recommended steps to improve AC Transit service, including development of Bus Rapid Transit (Chp. 3, p. 43). Without significant improvements in the speed and reliability of transit service, it will not seem to be a valid alternative to the private automobile. I also agree that a regional transit pass system should be a near-term action (Transportation Implementation Table, p. 57). The MTC has been working toward this goal for years it seems; why is it not operational yet? By contrast, in Los Angeles the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has implemented simple passes that enable users to easily transfer among heavy rail, light rail, and bus services. Just tap the card on the reader when boarding, and go. It could not be simpler, and it beats by a long shot the Bay Area’s so-far muddled attempts at cross-system transfers.

In Chp. 4, p. 68, rather than emphasize photovoltaics in the Berkeley FIRST program, a bigger return on investment might be made through assistance for energy efficiency measures, such as insulation and furnace replacement. Installation of photovoltaics will reduce electricity use, but for natural gas-heated homes, energy efficiency measures would reduce natural gas-related carbon emissions, and those seem to be significantly larger than those associated with electricity use.

In addition to the Climate Action Pledge (Chp. 7, p. 123), I suggest offering a pledge opportunity for drivers of fossil-fuel-powered vehicles to reduce their gasoline usage by some percentage. The burning of gasoline and diesel fuel produces by far the largest slice of the greenhouse gas emissions pie shown on p. 20 of the plan; a 10, 20, or 30 percent reduction in personal use of these fuels would therefore have a much greater impact than an individual’s pledge to, say, dry their laundry in the sun, or recycle more. An additional pledge opportunity should be offered, therefore, for those who drive a vehicle. Simply keep track for a few months of how many gallons of fuel are purchased, and then pledge to reduce use by, say, 25 percent the first year and then 10 percent annually in subsequent years. Since needs vary, perhaps each household can choose its own target. Assist those taking the challenge by offering a simple chart to keep track of gallons used, and incidentally, dollars saved. Those who meet their goals might, say, march together in the “How Berkeley Can You Be” Parade and follow it up with some kind of celebration, lunch with the mayor, or whatever.

If implemented in the strictest way, this proposed measure may seem a bit draconian, but I believe that it may be quite necessary to really achieve real sustainability.

The City should have a new element of building code that requires that any new parking lots or parking spaces that are created be covered in some fashion with a surface that utilizes the solar energy that would otherwise fall on pavement or cars. [Photons that, after all, would only serve to deteriorate the paint jobs on the cars.] The utilization of the solar photons can be through photovoltaic panels, living roof (gardens or parks), or other suitable surface that makes reasonable use of solar energy.

Effectively, expanses of open air parking should be prohibited.

Concurrent with this should be a program with financial mechanisms, e.g. similar to Berkeley First, to encourage and fund retrofit of existing parking areas to utilize the solar energy potential of those areas.

I commend the transportation elements for the Climate Action Plan that include increased use of public transit, ride share, bicycling,and walking. One area that could stand improvement is on p. 49 Goal #7 to "Encourage the use of low-carbon vehicles and fuels." In particular, more could be done to take advantage of the benefits of electric vehicle (EV) use. The only element in the plan that I could find about EVs was to "Evaluate opportunities to create additional free parking and charging stations for electric vehicles..." and "Include information about electric vehicles in broader marketing campaign."

I think we can do more. Given that fossil fuel powered vehicles are ultimately unsustainable and harmful to our well being, it behooves us to strive for non-fossil fuel vehicles and one of the simplest tried and true technologies available here and now is in fact electric propulsion: electric motors and batteries. This type of vehicle lends itself to complete sustainability if electric charging systems are by alternative electric energy technologies (sun, wind, geothermal, etc.). However, even if recharged by fossil fuel power systems, electric vehicles are several times more efficient than fossil fuel powered vehicles.

Seeing as how the major automobile companies are failing to provide choices to consumers that include this simple technology, the City should take more strident steps to encourage and promote the use of electric vehicles. Possible strategies for this include:

--Tax advantages for electric car dealerships and for electric car purchasers.

--Establishing favorable financing programs for purchase of electric vehicles (similar to the concept of Berkeley First).

--Encouraging and promoting projects that result in the conversion of existing internal combustion engine vehicles to electric power. One possible path could be through partnerships of automobile maintenance shops with vocational education programs (e.g. high school and community college) to create systems for providing opportunities for car owners to bring in their internal combustion vehicles and PAY to have them converted to electric vehicles, while providing education and job opportunities.

Very comprehensive and thoughtful.

Most of the suggested actions seem do-able.

At some point some prioritization would be helpful.

Highlighting those actions that would have the largest impacts would be useful.

Good work!

Here are a couple of other ways electric vehicles could be encouraged in Berkeley:

-- Free parking for electric vehicles anywhere and at all times on city streets and in city parking facilities.

-- Designation of some parking places at extremely busy destinations (downtown, Shattuck Ave. outside Berkeley Bowl, Fourth Street, etc.) and in some city parking structures as "Electric vehicle parking only".

-- Modification of traffic barriers (and the Berkeley traffic code) to allow through passage by NEV's (neighborhood electric vehicles).

-- Designation of specific streets as "NEV routes", similar to bike routes. Such routes would have traffic signals at intersections with heavily-traveled car routes (Ashby, Sacramento, San Pablo, etc.) so that it would be possible to move easily and safely around Berkeley in a NEV.

-- Waive building permit fees for the installation of solar panels to be used to power a NEV.

Submitted on behalf of Livable Berkeley:

The Governor recently signed Senate Bill 375 (SB375),a bill which establishes a "sustainable communities" approach to helping achieve the statewide climate goals established in the previously-enacted AB32. (Neither of these bills was envisioned when Measure G was passed.)

The detailed bill summary is at http://tinyurl.com/SB375

SB375, among other accomplishments, embeds the conclusions that we in Berkeley have also reached: that the only way we will achieve our climate goals is to change our historical patterns of transportation and land use.

SB375 requires cities such as Berkeley to establish sustainable community (GHG reduction) goals that meet the standards of the California Air Resources Board, and it establishes the threat of withholding state and federal transportation grants from communities that are not in compliance.

SB 375 adjusts other existing programs -- for example the Regional Housing Needs Assessment that assigns increased-housing goals -- to better ensure that they take into account our statewide GHG emissions reductions targets.

SB375 also ensures that GHG reductions targets are explicitly included in the establishment of future Regional Transportation Plans.

There is nothing in SB375 that is incompatible with a VIGOROUS Berkeley CAP, nor with the mechanisms set forth in prior CAP drafts.

However, in order to help ensure the passage of such a vigorous plan, the final draft needs to explicitly address SB375 in detail, and to delineate the compatibilities in detail.

The Council and our citizens need to be told -- within our CAP document -- that nothing we now adopt in Berkeley willrequire any changes to comply with SB375.

Therefore:

1) please ensure that the final draft of the CAP is fully in compliance with both AB32 and SB375, and so state publicly.

2) please ensure that the final draft of the CAP explicitly describes the reinforcing impacts of SB375 on our own Berkeley process, especially if any changes to the working draft have been needed since SB375's passage.

3) please ensure that the final draft of the CAP explicitly mentions the degree to which SB375 requires vigorous action on land use and transportation changes via more-vigorous statewide mechanisms.

The Local Clean Energy Alliance (LCEA) is a growing coalition of local nonprofits, businesses, and community leaders working for a clean energy future in the East Bay. The Alliance was founded by Bay Localize, Pacific Environment and the Sierra Club. Please see our website www.localcleanenergy.org for a complete and current list of all Alliance members.

Our long-term goal is for the East Bay to meet 100% of its future energy needs with a balanced mix of renewable energy, improvements in efficiency, and conservation. Our interim goal is 50% renewable energy by 2017. Additional goals are to:

• Reduce energy use through conservation and improvements in energy efficiency

• Maximize local renewable energy production

• Offer stable and affordable rates for all

• Create local business opportunities and green-collar jobs

• Facilitate local businesses and residents' ability to sell excess energy to the grid

• Ensure that the benefits of local clean energy accrue to all communities

We are coordinating efforts to mobilize East Bay residents, businesses, and organizations around a regional agenda that creates green-collar jobs, reduces pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and brings affordable, clean energy to our communities.

The 2nd draft of the Berkeley Climate Action Plan identifies two possibilities for adding more renewable energy sources to the electricity grid:

1. Work with PG&E and relevant State agencies to achieve a higher Renewable Portfolio Standard OR

2. Implement Community Choice Aggregation, also known as Community Choice Energy (CCE). Under CCE, the City government would be empowered to choose the community’s energy provider and the source of electricity.

The draft Climate Action Plan also has an action item to study the economic costs, other risks, and impact on GHG emissions associated with CCE and PG&E’s future energy mix.

The Local Clean Energy Alliance’s position is that CCE is likely to be the most effective option for greening the grid and that it could have many additional benefits with respect to local GHG reductions and green job creation. The alliance’s comments are as follows.

First, PG&E has already stated that it will not meet the state mandated goal of 20% eligible renewables by 2010. PG&E has been lobbying against the proposed AB32 goal of 33% renewable by 2020. PG&E’s renewable percentage has dropped from 12.4% in 2003 to 11.4% in 2007. (Source: Renewable Portfolio Standard Quarterly Report, July 2008). To be fair, part of the reason PG&E has not been able to meet its goals is rulemaking at the CPUC. Nevertheless, given their track record and the CPUC constraints put upon PG&E, it could be imprudent to stake Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan on PG&E’s ability to achieve state-mandated renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Second, PG&E’s propositions that are supposed to be alternatives to CCE are insufficient. To date, PG&E’s propositions generally seem to be a set of activities that are already being done, will be done under existing programs, or could be done regardless of whether a city pursues CCE.

A review of PG&E’s published plans provides insight into their lack of commitment to reducing GHG emissions. An analysis of PG&E’s Long Term Procurement Plan, filed with the CPUC last year, was performed by the Sonoma-based Climate Protection Campaign. The analysis concluded that even in the best case, PG&E’s portfolio will significantly miss the scientific imperative for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

A review of proposed capacity filings at the California Public Utilities Commission by Pacific Environment and Local Power reveals that PG&E is investing much more in new natural gas plants and pipelines than renewable energy. Investing in infrastructure is how PG&E increases its ratebase, which enables PG&E to meet shareholder profit growth expectations. In order for PG&E to continue to build new plants, ratepayers must continue to increase their power consumption (which is in contradiction with reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and PG&E must retain the power sourcing aspect of their business.

Consequently, PG&E is vigorously opposing Community Choice programs in San Francisco and Marin. It is also running a stealth campaign in East Bay that has included lobbying city councilors and the Dellums administration, making charitable donations, sponsoring events, and financing a push poll against Community Choice by the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

The propositions PG&E has submitted to Oakland, Marin, and Sonoma Counties are all remarkably similar. A consultant for the County of Marin’s Clean Energy program examined PG&E’s Marin proposal and summarized his detailed comments with the following statement:

"In general, it is very hard to determine what actually is being proposed by PG&E. The proposal has no relationship to the Marin Clean Energy plan or any obvious requirement for a JPA between Marin local governments. It doesn’t address any of the significant issues driving the Marin Clean Energy initiative such as substantial reduction in greenhouse gases, rate stability, long term energy price control and local decision making.

"The proposal appears to offer little more than what is already readily available in the marketplace. It lacks any analysis of the legal and regulatory issues that would have to be addressed, and the likelihood of being approved by the CPUC. It provides no analysis of the costs and benefits to Marin customers and communities, and no estimate of the environmental benefits like greenhouse gas reduction that might be achieved over the status quo."

To conclude our comments about PG&E’s proposals, we would suggest to the City of Berkeley that PG&E’s plans are too undefined, vague, and lacking specifics that they should not be viewed as a serious alternative to the much more detailed proposal of Community Choice Energy, which professional energy analysts, city staff and consultants have been working on since 2002. Furthermore, the CPUC recently stated that cities can continue working with PG&E on energy efficiency, strategic planning, and clean energy programs whether or not they pursue CCE. On January 6th 2009, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to work with PG&E to pursue energy efficiency and strategic planning funds from the CPUC while continuing to explore Community Choice.

Third, increasing the amount of renewable energy in the electricity supply is completely different if done with PG&E vs. a CCE program. To meet or beat PG&E's rates while meeting the goal of more than 50% renewable energy by 2017, CCE would need to build its own local and regional renewable energy generating facilities and invest in proven demand reduction and energy efficiency technologies. It would also seek to ensure that more of the public good charges collected on the electricity bills of East Bay ratepayers would be used for energy efficiency in the East Bay, thereby creating local green jobs.

Thus, a CCE program would not only increase the renewable energy in the grid, but also support and reinforce the Berkeley Climate Plan’s policy to “Develop a local, clean, decentralized, renewable energy supply, mostly in the form of residential and commercial solar PV and solar thermal installations.” A CCE program leveraging revenue bonds would finance and build renewable generation, demand response, and energy efficiency at a much lower cost than PG&E. The Navigant proposal estimates that the cost of borrowing for CCE (or “cost of capital”) is 5%, because the cities (or the Joint Powers Authority) can borrow money at the rate normally offered for municipal loans.

Investor owned utilities such as PG&E pay on the order of 12% to borrow money to finance renewable energy projects. This huge difference in the cost of capital means that a CCE program can build renewable energy generation less expensively than PG&E. And since a CCE program need not generate profits, pay hefty executive compensation and bonuses, and pay taxes, the CCE that builds its own renewable generation has the potential to generate more renewable energy locally, reducing GHG emissions and creating local green jobs, at a much lower cost than PG&E.

Fourth, CCE could also “push the envelope” with proven demand response technologies that enable two-way communication between the grid and a smart meter installed at the site such that discretionary electricity uses could be automatically curtailed when power is in short supply. This could be done in a way that provides a financial benefit to both the CCE and the ratepayer. Aggressively using this high cost-effective technology along with increased energy efficiency could lead to an overall reduction of electricity use in the East Bay which coupled with renewable energy would maximize GHG emission reductions and create local green jobs.

Fifth, CCE could do something that no other program in Berkeley can do, that is, bridge the owner/renter financial split. Renters comprise more than 50% of Berkeley residents and under existing city of Berkeley and PG&E programs, yet there is no incentive for them to get renewable energy. CCE would bridge this divide in several ways:

1) All customers of the CCE, including renters, would get 51% of their power from renewable energy by 2017

2) A greater amount of energy efficiency funds collected in the CCE’s jurisdiction could be used to reduce the electricity needs of CCE customers, including renters and perhaps targeting low-income

3) A CCE could utilize Power Purchase Agreements to enable renters to buy shares in large local cooperative solar installations. With PG&E, this cannot work because of the current net metering law which means any excess energy fed into the grid goes to PG&E for free.

Sixth, a CCE program could enable people who can generate more renewable energy than they use to sell it back to the grid at a small profit. Currently, people undersize their solar systems because the net excess energy goes to PG&E for free. CCE could set up a feed-in tariff that would guarantee a stable and fair rate of return for those investing in renewable energy, thereby providing renewable energy investors (be them building owners or members of a cooperative) an strong incentive to generate more power than they use. Feed-in tariffs are being proposed in the Marin County CCE plan and have boosted renewable energy generation in Germany and more than dozen other EU countries.

Seventh, Berkeley does not have to reinvent the wheel. The San Joaquin Valley Power Authority, the first CPUC certified CCE program, is working through many of the startup issues. San Francisco continues to pursue CCE.

In December 2008, Marin Clean Energy formed the Marin Power Authority JPA with cities and towns accounting for 70% of the entire county’s electricity load. Other cities (such as Novato, Larkspur, Corte Madera, and even Berkeley) can join the JPA within 180 days (6 months) of December 19th, 2008 (the first official day of the JPA). The JPA will have public meetings on the 2nd or 3rd Wednesdays starting in February 2009. Marin Clean Energy will put out a RFP in March 2009.

Eighth, Marin did a comprehensive GHG emission reduction study and found that CCE was by far the most cost effective policy option for reducing emissions.

In their study, they calculate both "onsite GHG emissions" and "absolute GHG emissions". They use the term, "onsite GHG emissions" to refer to what is actually generated at the point of production based on overall energy mix for the customers. They use the term "absolute GHG emissions" to refer to the overall impact our departing from PG&E's load would have in real-time. PG&E representatives have stated publicly that when we depart from their load they will not reduce hydro electric or nuclear emissions but would only reduce natural gas generation. This results in an absolute GHG emission reduction that is much higher. As the chart at http://www.localcleanenergy.org/files/MarinGHGEstimates.jpg shows, either method shows favorable results for the CCA, the absolute emissions are just more dramatic.

For more information on Marin Clean Energy, contact Dawn Weisz, Principal Planner, Marin County Community Development Agency, 415-507-2706 or dweisz@co.marin.ca.us

Ninth, moving forward with CCE is a powerful way to gain negotiating leverage with PG&E. Proceeding with the next step (i.e., forming a JPA with other interested cities and developing an implementation plan) does not commit Berkeley to fully implement CCE as there are multiple “offramps”. But it would signal to PG&E that Berkeley is serious about reducing GHG emissions and force them to ante up their best offer. As mentioned earlier, Oakland has confirmed with CPUC officials that Oakland can work with PG&E to get energy efficiency and strategic planning funds while still exploring CCE. A dual path of moving forward with CCE while continuing to work with PG&E on energy efficiency and renewable energy may be the best path for Berkeley as well.

In Conclusion, in Berkeley’s final Climate Action Plan, we strongly urge Berkeley to prioritize Community Choice over collaborating with PG&E for generating and purchasing new sources of renewable energy. We realize that PG&E is a needed partner for any renewable energy project, and that they have publicly committed themselves to making progress on increasing the amount of renewable energy they include in their overall mix. However, due to market uncertainties, the lack of local control over PG&E’s activities, and the inherent conflict of interest for an investor-owned utility to encourage customers to consume less energy, we think that the Community Choice model is superior to PG&E’s proposals for reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions associated with electricity production, transport and consumption.

We also suggest that the action step in the Climate Plan for Community Choice Energy – to compare the projected economic costs, other risks, and impact on GHG emissions associated with CCE and PG&E’s future energy mix – should explicitly note the work that Sonoma and Marin Counties have already done in assessing the relative risks, benefits, and GHG emissions of PG&E’s proposal.

Hello, I support Community Choice Energy. I'd like more transparency in the process of providing power to citizens than PG&E has demonstrated.

Thank you.

Goal #2 of Chapter 7 of the Climate Action Plan endeavors to “enhance outreach and incentives to the business community”. There are well researched and articulated suggestions on how to achieve this goal and I am writing to comment on what I believe to be a opportunity for The City of Berkeley. Based on the success of outreach conducted by Non-Profits such as Sustainable Berkeley, Community Energy Services Corporation and Rising Sun, there is ample evidence that targeted outreach campaigns yield substantive results. We have a unique and diverse business community here in Berkeley, one comprised largely of small to medium sized businesses, and these businesses are often under served and disconnected from resources that are more accessible to/by larger businesses. Given what we know about the efficacy of outreach programs, it seems a foregone conclusion that the City should play a constructive role in ensuring that services and education be provided to businesses by a consistent, predictable and reliable agent. Though Non-Profits have contributed significantly to the City’s reductions in energy consumption and land fill diversion, they have other goals, territories and priorities to attend to. I believe that there is tremendous value in the City of Berkeley creating a position that is dedicated solely to providing integrated environmental services, assessment, education and referrals for our small business owners. We are asking a lot of businesses here in Berkeley……they are required to go beyond federal and state standards in their fields. By means of our pioneering standards and culture we have invited an undesirable outcome – that of a difficult and oft prohibitive environment for businesses. By creating a role for the City to assist businesses in achieving higher environmental performance, we are demonstrating a welcome act of goodwill toward business owners that moves our community towards its environmental goals. An outreach coordinator that is a City employee can build meaningful relationships with businesses over time and come to be relied upon as a trusted voice of support and assistance, restoring some of faith and confidence in local government that had been eroded over time. We are going to be asking everyone to make changes, to scrutinize their carbon footprint and to move decisively toward our formidable goal of an 80% reduction of ghg’s by 2050. Can’t the City commit some resources, that are accessible and practical, to these businesses that need them the most? I trust that we (The City, Utility Companies, Non-Profits) will continuously improve services and assistance for businesses, lets make sure that the information gets to those valuable contributing members of our community. I certainly hope that with all of the energy and talent being contributed toward our goals that the opportunity that is at hand is not squandered.

TRANSPORTATION

Reducing car dependence and promoting biking, walking, skating alternatives is key, can be implemented quickly with minor infrastructure changes, and will have create numerous benefits for quality of life since automobiles are also responsible for accidents, noise pollution, air pollution, ground and water pollution from leaking fluids, as well as multiple negative health, worker, and environmental effects related to producing, transporting, and maintaining cars (REGARDLESS OF FUEL TYPE). Maintenance on roads will likely also be lessened in the long run. In order to do this, the city should:

1)Prioritize bike and skating routes that are free of cars, or where the bike lane is completely separated from traffic and parked cars in order to make biking safe and comfortable for people of all ages, abilities, or bike preference (eg. recumbent and tandem bikes). See http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ & http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPG-4P6VD47-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d200917c06c59f334378c2d04e6243d4

2)Make intersections along these routes safe & efficient for bikes so that they can minimize complete stops (see http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~fajans/pub/pdffiles/StopSignsAccess.pdf)

3)Subsidize and promote use of bike racks and bags and trailers, since they make bike usage for shopping and regular transportation more efficient and safe, but are currently costly for low income residents. I can regularly carry 50lbs of groceries home on my bike rack with two panniers with little extra effort, whereas trying to carry the equivalent weight home on foot or in bags hanging off of the handlebars, or even in a backpack worn while riding would be extremely challenging and dangerous. Yet, I often see people in West & South Berkeley struggling to ride their bikes slowly on sidewalks with bags or friends hanging off the handlebars.

4)Sponsor a city-wide campaign to increase biking, specifically, collaborate with existing Earth Day/Earth Week events throughout city (eg. UC Berkeley events, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, & Management Graduate Research Symposium, MLK park event) and host car-free carnival (mentioned in another comment) & parade the weekend 4/18. Collaborate with Bike to Work Month (May) efforts & have car-free events every weekend – at parks in each of the 8 city council districts from 4/18-6/6 (ending during weekend of World Environment Day). Thereafter, monthly events? Programming would include instruction on how to ride, bike safety, bike maintenance, etc. Support efforts for “biking school buses” where adults would ride with students together along selected routes to & from school.

5)Increase bike parking for larger bikes with trailers or bags & make concerted efforts to curb bike & bike accessory theft (partly through increasing access to bikes for all).

6)Increase enclosed bike parking in rental units, and reduce car parking requirements, especially near transit.

7)Create & support existing bike repair operations, especially where users can learn to perform their own basic maintenance. For example, Street Level Cycles (Tinker Waterside Workshops) provide tools, workspace, and volunteers for bike maintenance or building, but is limited in its capacity. We need more facilities like SF's Bike Kitchen that provide tools as well as ongoing classes on bike maintenance. This can also be integrated in BUSD curriculum at all levels, including the adult school.

8)Advocate for: 1) better ramp, elevator access to BART 2) better system for bikes on buses, 3) changing CA vehicle code to allow bikes more right of way (eg. stop signs for cars indicate yield for bikes and stop lights indicate stop, look, and go when clear).

9)Use revenue from parking violations to supplement public transit or pedestrian/bike costs only, rather than general fund. Consider sliding scale for low-income residents, since current rates are quite high & increases will only exacerbate this 'regressive tax.'

10)Close one lane of Hearst along Ohlone Park to traffic, and create separated 2-way bike lane next to sidewalk.

11)Increase bike safety on Sacramento and San Pablo Aves.

Increase experiences in parks to promote healthy alternatives for recreation and exercise (which will enhance people's ability to use human-powered transportation).

1)Reuse BAS on University for homeless housing & programming.

2)Replace portable toilets with green, composting toilets.

3)Ensure all parks with bathrooms have hand-washing facilities.

4)Provide more water fountains and trash cans.

5)Support educational programming in newly-created community gardens for first-time gardeners.

6)Support more public art and performances in parks (create more outdoor amphitheaters, alter requirements for sound permits below certain volumes & during certain hours).

7)Consider common allergies, etc. for city plantings, since allergies are expected to increase with climate change effects. Encourage native plants.

BUSINESS & HOUSING

Create program to support businesses that hire locally. Local hire program for city jobs as well.

Support cooperative businesses and housing. Increase density within existing buildings rather than focus only on new developments (whether TOD or not).

Subsidize shared radiant solar technology for multi-unit rental buildings. (eg. solar ovens http://www.solarcooking.org/plans/ or human powered washing machines http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/08/22/cyclean-bike-powered-washing-machine/). Presence of these will reduce some energy use, and can have an event bigger impact on the mindset of residents, and especially youth to innovate and consider alternative technologies.

OUTREACH & EDUCATION

Provide mobile outreach & education to existing city resources (libraries, schools, senior centers, rec centers) as well as non-profit groups, religious orgs, neighborhood groups, etc.

It is important that coupled with the desire and impetus to push really hard, really fast for aggressive reductions in these emissions, that we do not put excessive burden on lower income residents. The requirement to change out older, classic gas stoves because they have a pilot light(!) is really costly for very little gain. What if the house is really small, and heated very efficiently? Has a tankless water heater? This goal needs a flexible approach, not selective imposition of standards. Perhaps a "point" approach to savings per house rather than blanket bans on equipment.

I would like to make the following suggestion on Page 43 of the current draft:

Replace:

Continue assessment and development of proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

With:

Proceed with development of a Locally Preferred Alternative (specific routing, design considerations, and mitigations) for the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in a timely way in order to make a specific proposal to AC Transit and move the project forward as quickly as possible. Provide strong support and leadership for this process by emphasizing that this project is the single most important proposal for improving public transportation currently under consideration in the East Bay.