The following is excerpted from a letter by Tam Hunt of the Community Environmental Council, 2/11/2009, to the City Finance and Sustainability Committees concerning the goal to achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2020:


... Carbon neutral planning by businesses and local governments in our region is one of the top means by which our region can wean itself from fossil fuels. And we see the City as the "crown jewel" in regional efforts to quickly move away from fossil fuels. The City has consistently stepped up and met the challenges community groups
have suggested over the decades. Not because the City does the bidding, willy nilly, of community groups - rather, it is because many of the goals suggested make sense from many different points of view: environmentally, economically, and morally. It is all of our moral imperative to do what we can to mitigate climate change and to increase our regional energy independence. We take climate change and oil depletion with the utmost seriousness and see these as the major issues of our era - without hyperbole.

Before responding substantively to your comments, I want to quote from Al Gore's speech last year, announcing his challenge to the U.S. to achieve, as a nation of 300 million people, 100% clean energy for power production in just ten years, sooner than we are suggesting the City achieve carbon neutrality for only its own operations:


"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our
electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources
within 10 years.

"This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a
challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political
leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

"A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a
challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now
beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled
with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have
radically changed the economics of energy.

"When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts
testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of
energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over
$135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment
are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal,
photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious
new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

"And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to
fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the
specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as
$300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a
kilogram."


As Gore suggests, transformative change is required when it comes to our patently unsustainable energy practices. The good news is that this transformative change will very likely lead to substantial cost savings because we know that fossil fuel prices are heading nowhere but up in the long-term (we will surely have dips in prices, like now, but there is a consensus that we are in a temporary dip that will last only aslong as the current economic recession).

For some supportive words from a less controversial source than Gore, the International Energy Agency released its latest World Energy Outlook a couple of months ago. Its scary conclusion (see attached for the Executive Summary):


"Securing energy supplies and speeding up the transition to a low-carbon
energy system both call for radical action by governments - at national
and local levels."


To respond substantively to your comments:

1) Is the carbon neutral goal achievable? Yes. It is highly achievable and is a matter of City staff receiving the necessary direction from the Council. Currently, the City has at best 1 FTE devoted to energy issues (Jim Dewey's time is only 20% allocated to energy). If we agree, as most policymakers do now, that climate change and oil depletion are the imperative issues of our day, the City, an organization with over 1,000 FTE, must devote far more time to energy efficiency and renewable energy implementation. Even if the City does not substantially increase its
energy-oriented FTE, the carbon neutral goal is still highly achievable because the City is not a major power user. The Lompoc wind farm, approved unanimously yesterday, is for 98 megawatts of power. Conversely, the City will need about 6 MW, in total, to become carbon neutral. However, with the City already planning to install additional solar projects (1.5 MW), small hydro (750 kW), and CT and fuel cell expansion (about 1 MW), any wind power additions will amount to no more
than 3 MW.

Our goal for carbon neutrality county-wide is a much more imposing goal - we will need over 2,000 MW of new renewables to achieve this goal. 3 MW is obviously far more achievable.

Also, the technologies for achieving carbon neutrality are by and large already here. Solar, wind, small hydro, and waste to energy already exist. On the vehicle side, commercially available electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are not yet here, but will be soon. B50 is not yet allowed, but very likely will be in the next few years. But even if the vehicle technologies don't come through, vehicle emissions by the City are very small compared to electricity emissions. It's not difficult to
offset all the City's vehicle emissions without any new vehicle technologies.

2) Does the City need to set a goal of carbon neutrality by 2020, instead of a later date, or no date at all?

Clearly there is much room for judgment on this issue, but it is our view that by setting a clear date for achieving this goal, City staff (and community groups) will proceed vigorously to make it happen. As Gore said in his speech last year, announcing his 10 year plan to repower America, a 20 year plan is too long because it allows for the slow pace of change of "business as usual" to continue. 10 years is long enough to allow for significant work to be done, and to achieve this goal. But it's soon enough that it requires vigorous action from day one. We need vigorous action, transformative change and a major shift from business as usual. In short, we need a paradigm shift away from business as usual. We don't have time for the glacial action of normally-functioning bureaucracy. By setting this goal now, the Council will be signaling its intent to move quickly toward this goal.

3) Does achieving carbon neutrality depend on CT at Tajiguas?

No. As our plan shows, we counted only 1 MW coming from CT at Tajiguas, which is about half what Jim Dewey assumed (we don't disagree with Jim, we simply projected a different capacity for the project that will be built). There are many other ways to achieve carbon neutrality without any CT power. Solar power is particularly promising because it can be built fairly quickly, with no upfront costs (using PPAs) that may come with guaranteed savings if certain PPA providers are used, and there are a number of new legal tools that allow expanded use of solar power by cities and counties. We are working, as mentioned, with Nava, to pass a bill that would expand net metering options, opening up many new renewable energy sites for the City to develop. We are also working with the County of Santa Barbara, UCSB and Allen Hancock college to develop a publicly-financed wind farm in North County, at 10-20 MW. This could be built within a few years, and the City could join in this project as a revenue source and also as a source of offsets (through sales of offsets and then buyback, or other possible arrangements) to help it achieve carbon neutrality.

4) Is CEC suggesting the City should suspend its judgment re the wisdom of any particular projects on its way to achieving carbon neutrality?

No. We expect the City to evaluate every project it considers to achieve carbon neutrality, on its own merits. We are not suggesting the City should try to achieve carbon neutrality at any cost. Rather, we view this goal as both morally required but also economically wise. It should allow for significant cost savings over time, helping the City to weather its current economic crisis and helping to hedge against
volatile fossil fuel costs in the future. Zero interest federal bonds (CREBs) are available, as well as PPA financing, so there are many ways to achieve cost savings on the way toward carbon neutrality. This is a local stimulus package for the City - and should be viewed as such...

IEA Executive Summary.pdf

Labels: Al Gore, carbon neutrality, CEC, fossil fuels, IEA