August 2008

Publisher’s View: Focused Energy

By Steven J. Moss

San Franciscans spend a lot of time talking about energy.  Environmentalists argue for more solar, and the closure of the Potrero Power Plant.  Progressives want the City to takeover Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) distribution system, or at least replace the monopoly as San Francisco’s prime power purchaser.  PG&E, which has its giant headquarters here, sponsors posters on Muni buses claiming that it’s the greenest thing since Kermit the Frog, and funds Astroturf efforts to stop municipalization.   

Despite the chatter, the City’s electric infrastructure is little better than Des Moines’.  Tidal power, which Mayor Gavin Newsom loudly proclaimed was the next big thing, flamed out after tests under the Golden Gate Bridge proved it to be infeasible.  Solar remains more an idea than a reality, with San Francisco sporting far fewer photovoltaic installations than Alameda County.  The Potrero Power Plant is still the largest stationary source of polluting air and greenhouse gas emissions in the City.  And, despite repeated attempts by progressives, PG&E continues to wield monopoly power over San Franciscans.

The irony is that San Francisco is the perfect place to demonstrate new and better ways to produce, distribute, and consume power.  Located at the end of a peninsula, with the densest population east of Chicago, and a stones throw away from the technology center of the universe, the City is a natural laboratory to demonstrate an environmentally and economically sustainable energy network.  We just need to stop talking about what we’re going to do, and start thoughtfully doing it.      

When the 400 megawatt capacity Trans Bay Cable transmission line is completed two years from now, the City will have access to plenty of power for at least another decade.  As soon as the cable is operational the Potrero Power Plant should be fully closed. Over time San Francisco should reduce its dependency on outside generation sources, by taking advantage of the web of existing small scale generation located throughout the City:  natural gas turbines at the University of California, San Francisco; fuel cells at the Post Office’s Bayview location and at downtown buildings; diesel back-up units that could be made ultra-clean and that are already sited throughout San Francisco.  These resources, along with emerging solar and wind installations, should be networked into the grid and comprehensively managed.

The City should construct a transmission line to link Hetch-Hetchy power coming from the East Bay to the Peninsula through existing, abandoned, water conduits.  Such a line would complete the Raker Act’s century-old promise to provide San Francisco with direct access to its Sierra-based hydropower facilities.  

Demand for even renewable generating resources – which remain expensive – should be driven down by energy efficiency and demand management programs.  The City should invest its resources in rapidly replacing energy-wasting old commercial and residential refrigerators and other appliances with state-of-the-art models.  Sales of pre-2000 electricity-sucking refrigerators from second-hand shops in the Mission and elsewhere should be banned, and replaced with a low-income assistance program.  San Francisco’s $3 million a year in solar subsidies would produce far more benefits if the same amount of money was dedicated to distributing power strips to manage plug load; applying timers and sensors on appliances and lights to make sure they’re only on when they’re needed; and experimenting with emerging, small-scale technologies that can store energy when it’s cheap so that it can be used when it’s needed most.

The electric distribution system – which is the main target of tussles over municipalization – should be fully undergrounded, with meters upgraded to reflect 21st Century technology.  In this respect a November ballot initiative that would place a temporary ban on installation of PG&E’s preferred meters is well-grounded.  The utility has already abandoned technology it recently installed at upwards of 700,000 homes and businesses in the Central Valley as being obsolete, and insists on placing multiple expensive meters at businesses that would be better off with just one master meter.  With the right technology the local grid could form the basis for a new era of meter-based wireless, communicating devices, capable of everything from managing a home or businesses’ energy use to challenging cable, cell, and satellite-based Internet, telephone, and television transmission.  Or we could spend more than a billion dollars on eight-track tapes.   

Whether or not PG&E or the San Francisco Public Utility Commission manages the City’s grid may not matter as much as progressives think:  both institutions act essentially as monopolies, with only loose political controls over either.  Still, there are indications that PG&E is too big for its britches; natural monopolies are supposed to be able to provide the next unit of service at a lower price than the previous one.  It’s no longer clear whether the utility meets that description.  

Whoever controls the grid needs to have a clear vision and the ability to carry it out:  it doesn’t matter who’s steering the ship if they don’t know where they’re going.  Debates over public power should evolve past assertions about PG&E’s evil character and the possibility of lower rates – though both may be true – and the benefits of adopting a narrow set of renewable technologies to a thoughtful conversation about how a diversity of elements can be put into play to create an economically and environmentally sustainable energy future.       

Talk, it turns out, is expensive.  While San Francisco’s political class chatters, natural gas prices have doubled; global climate change continues unabated; the Potrero Power Plant keeps spewing; and ordinary citizens feel no more empowered to dictate their energy future than they did a century ago.  The good news is that the technology and organizational structures exist that would enable us to create the future we like to talk about so much.  Let’s get to work.            

 

 

 Subscribe to The Potrero View

All rights reserved. Copyright © 2006 The Potrero View.

Content on this site may not be archived, retransmitted, saved in a database, or used for any commercial purpose without the express written permission of The Potrero View or its Publishers.