CaliforniaCityNews.org

Here Comes the Sun: Researcher Maps Solar Grid Parity in Cities; San Diego to be 1st City?

John Farrell, a senior researcher on the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has published an interesting animated map at the website “Energy Self-Reliant States” to project solar grid parity in cities across the United States. Solar grid parity refers to the point at which electricity from solar power is less costly than electricity from the existing grid. The animated map predicts that it will be a city in California to be the first solar grid parity city; specifically, San Diego in the year 2013. According to the figures presented, “In just 7 years, 1 in 6 Americans living in major metropolitan areas could lower their electricity bill by installing solar –without any incentives.” Farrell notes that he drew his conclusions with the following data:

“We used the following assumptions in the construction of this animated map: 1.) The cost of solar in 2011 is $4.00 per Watt installed. 2.) Grid electricity price is the average residential retail rate reported by PVWatts for the core city of the metropolitan area. 3.) The cost of solar decreases by 7% per year. 4.) The grid electricity price increases by 2% per year.”

Take a look at the animated map here and click the “animate” button or input the year you want to see figures for. For instance, by inputting the year 2015, the map shows that grid parity will only be evident in two cities: San Diego and New York. However, by 2020, the map shows that 17 cities will have solar grid parity with 6 cities achieving that status in California.

There are issues to ponder, however, when considering the accuracy of the chart’s conclusions. Some critics have argued it doesn’t seem to fully account for local incentives and tax benefits that affect prices. In addition, one might take issue with the projected utility rate increase, which possibly falls short of the national historical average and there is reason to believe costs will increase far more than outlined by the graph’s numbers. That being said, the map is an interesting perspective on when the rising-grid-cost and falling-solar-cost curves will intersect in cities.

Edison Uses Toilets as Bargaining Chip in Deal with Oxnard; Officials Ready to Flush?

If you’re going to win over city officials, there are plenty of options, but Southern California Edison has decided to go for toilets...yes, toilets are apparently the bargaining chip of choice. The utility wants to build a power plant in Oxnard, but officials flushed that idea, so now Edison has sued the city and offered up the toilet-swap proposal. Oxnard rejected the power plant idea because officials said it would violate the city’s water policy, so Edison countered that it would install enough free water-saving toilets and urinals in the city to offset the 45-megawatt peaker plant's water usage. The utility described the deal in a letter to the city. The Ventura County Star reports:

“The 45-megawatt power plant is steeped in conflict. The city's elected officials, who strongly oppose it, have refused to issue construction permits, though the facility was approved by the California Coastal Commission in 2009. A pair of legal battles is in play. City Attorney Alan Holmberg said Monday he couldn't comment until he has a chance to discuss the topic with staff and council members. Anthony Emmert, the city's water resources manager, hadn't seen the letter but said staffers had previously discussed the idea with the utility. ‘It has been done in other places,’ he said of the proposed low-flow toilet swap. ‘It is something, at least in concept, city staff supports.’”

The letter cites Edison’s frustrations in getting the city to identify water offsets. ABC filed the following report:

South Lake Tahoe Officials Question the Merits of Environmental Lawsuit; Deem Misleading

The environmental group The League to Save Lake Tahoe is suing the city of South Lake Tahoe over its new planning regulations, which the group argues will affect the clarity of the lake through pollution from more roads and homes. The implementation of the regulations is part of the city’s general plan to guide future development. The environmentalists asked a federal judge to throw out the regulations because according to the group, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency did not review them, as required by a federal bi-state compact. The League to Save Lake Tahoe fears that if the regulations are allowed, then over 1,000 new housing units in six-story buildings spread over 100 acres could be constructed in the future. In response to the litigation, the city has countered by calling the group’s suit a “deliberate attempt to confuse the discussion.” A city spokesman released the following statement:

“The League's actions once again demonstrate their willingness to mislead the public and now the courts in a way that redirects the public's very limited resources defending legal complaints rather than spending resources on improving the infrastructure that is in fact contributing to lake clarity degradation. […]The League is well aware and fully informed that the City's General Plan does not contain provisions to build six story buildings over 100 acres, yet they have knowingly released several statements to the contrary and those misleading statements remain on their website.”

However, the League has said it stands by its statements/facts. City attorney Patrick Enrighth has also fired back against the merits of the suit, stating that “While the League's modus operandi is to file lawsuits, which gains them publicity and donations, their lawsuits do not help improve water quality or lake clarity. They would be more effective at preserving Lake Tahoe if they dedicated funds to do just that, improve, redevelop, remodel and restore the lake and there are plenty of opportunities for the League to do so.”

On June 28th, council members will discuss the lawsuit.

Beach Bummers: Annual Water Quality Report Card; 8 in LA County Receive F Grade

The summer months are approaching, so it’s as good a time as any to know which of the state’s beaches score well for water quality. The non-profit Heal the Bay has released its annual Beach Report Card and 21 percent of California beaches scored perfect A-plus grades. Overall, most state beaches had good to excellent water quality scores, with 400 of 445 locations receiving an A or B grade during the summer dry time period. However, there is great disparity between dry and wet weather water quality, which Heal the Bay argues is the result of insufficient efforts to reduce storm water runoff pollution. When it comes to those beaches that ranked the worst, 4 out of 10 were in Los Angeles County. Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, commented that “Despite numerous individual beach success stories, this year demonstrated that there hasn’t been progress reducing major beach pollution sources like the Los Angeles River, Malibu Creek and Topanga Creek.” Long Beach in particular saw its grads drop by 40% after three years of improvement.

Overall, beaches in San Diego, Orange and Ventura counties ranked very well, and an "A" grade was given to 90 percent of Bay Area oceanside beaches for the absence of potentially harmful bacteria.

Top 10 beaches with the poorest water quality statewide
1. Cowell Beach -- at the wharf (Santa Cruz County)
2. Avalon Harbor Beach on Catalina Island (L.A. County)
3. Cabrillo Beach harborside (Los Angeles County)
4. Topanga State Beach at creek mouth (L.A. County)
5. Poche Beach (Orange County)
6. North Beach/Doheny (Orange County)
7. Arroyo Burro Beach (Santa Barbara County)
8. Baker Beach at Lobos Creek (San Francisco County)
9. Colorado Lagoon (Los Angeles County)
10. Capitola Beach -- west of the jetty (Santa Cruz County)

You can read the full report card here.

State of the Air: California Cities Top the Ranks for Most Polluted Areas of the Country

When it comes to air quality, California cities have the distinction of ranking at the top for the most polluted air. The American Lung Association has released its findings in its annual report “State of the Air,” which concludes that more than 90% of Californians live in counties with unhealthful air. According to the vice president of national policy and advocacy for the ALA, there are millions of people who live "where the air is dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, dirty enough to shape children's lungs and cause deaths." That being said, the state’s overall air quality has improved slightly. American Lung Association in California president and CEO Jane Warner commented that “Air pollution is making people sick and cutting lives short.”

Here is the list of the most ozone-polluted cities in the country:

1. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.
2. Bakersfield-Delano, Calif.
3. Visalia-Porterville, Calif.
4. Fresno-Madera, Calif.
5. Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, Calif.-Nev.
6. Hanford-Corcoran, Calif.
7. San Diego-Carlsbad-San arcos, Calif.
8. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas
9. Merced, Calif.
10. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, N.C.-S.C.

And the following is a list of the most polluted cities when it comes to year-round particle pollution:

1. Bakersfield-Delano, Calif.
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.
2. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, Ariz.
2. Visalia-Porterville, Calif.
5. Hanford-Corcoran, Calif.
6. Fresno-Madera, Calif.
7.Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.
8.Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Ala.
9.Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.
10.Louisville-Jefferson County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, Ky.-Ind.
10.Modesto, Calif.

More on pollution in California can be seen here. You can read the ALA’s full report here.

Residents and City Council Demand Answers about Safety of Fuel Storage Tanks in Brisbane

In light of the natural disaster in Japan and its effects on nuclear energy, residents in the city of Brisbane made it apparent that they weren’t willing to take any chances and demanded answers from energy storage giant Kinder Morgan. The company hosts over 20 fuel storage tanks in the city, and at a recent city council meeting, Kinder Morgan’s safety record was discussed by elected officials and concerned residents due to potential earthquakes. Representatives from the company were grilled about their disaster preparedness and residents blamed the outfit for polluting the town. Mercury News reports:

“The tank farm is not in a tsunami inundation zone, according to the California Emergency Management Agency. But it is 4.5 miles from the San Andreas Fault. [Regional Director Alan] Campbell said that the Peninsula pipelines could see "some damage" from a quake the size of Japan's, but that the fuel tanks, which are built on bedrock, would be fine. ‘Your first responders will be relying on our terminal to provide fuel if and when a disaster happens,’ he said with confidence. Campbell told council members about the maintenance protocols and emergency procedures the company has developed, including the local fire drills and pipeline inspection reports that Kinder Morgan submits to the state fire marshal.”

Despite the company’s assurances that the pipelines are well monitored, there are concerns that its maintenance track record lacks clarity and transparency. Case in point: the representative was unable to tell officials on the council when certain tanks had last been inspected. For more, see here.

Rancho Cucamonga Joins Growing List of Cities Recycling Styrofoam and Supporting Local Businesses

By Kevin O'Brien

A tall blue plastic container sits curbside in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, where the universal recycling symbol stamped on its side carries extra meaning.  Joining a growing number of California cities where innovative environmental policies are helping to meet ever-expanding mandates for diversion and waste management, Rancho Cucamonga has instituted a successful curbside recycling program for polystyrene —or “Styrofoam” containers.

Linda Ceballos, Rancho Cucamonga’s Environmental Programs Manager, was gracious enough to discuss the service in an interview with California City News. Ceballos explained that “Residential customers can put clean, whole foam in their recycling collection barrel.  The city’s franchised waste hauler, Burrtec Waste Industries, collects all of the recyclables and takes the materials to the West Valley Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for sorting.” A representative from Burrtec took California City News through the recycling process, “Once the material is picked up, it is taken to Burrtec’s Material Recovery Facility in Fontana where all the drivers empty out their trucks. The foam is then sorted, by hand, by operators on a conveyer line, and shipped out in large quantities.”

Foam pickup and recycling programs are a growing trend in the Inland Empire, where municipalities -- including Upland, Fontana, Ontario, Rialto, Grand Terrace, Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County -- are all participating in some form of foam recycling.  Indeed, across California, there are cities, schools and public agencies, with jurisdictions as large as the City of Los Angeles, now participating. See a full list here.

Recycled foam supports a growing industry that creates consumer goods out of recycled Styrofoam™ and other plastics.  For instance, Chino-based NEPCO Industries has grown its workforce steadily in recent years, collecting recycled Styrofoam™ and producing new products, such as high-end picture frames.  In April 2010, State Senator Bob Huff, Assemblymember Norma Torres and San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt attended the official opening of NEPCO's new 36,000-sq. foot Corona facility.

 We are very excited about the growing number of cities and counties moving toward curbside recycling as a way to support the growing demand for recycled plastic materials,” said Michael Westerfield, Director of Recycling Programs for DART Container. “DART is proud to be an industry leader in producing high-quality, cost-effective products in a manner sensitive to environmental concerns, and we are excited to now see several dozen cities incorporating foam in their curbside programs, from Rancho Cucamonga all the way up to the City of Los Angeles.  

 In Rancho Cucamonga, the goal of the curbside service has maintained its original focus of achieving the city’s environmental policy objectives.  It was a focus Ceballos reiterated, stating that “To decrease the amount of trash that ends up in landfills. Recycling foam is only a small part of the overall goal for increased diversion through recycling.  The program was introduced in early 2010, and we hope through continued community education that we reach more people about this additional recycling option.”

Ceballos described the process after the recyclables are gathered: “The foam is separated and a densifier is used to compact the foam into blocks that are then sold on the recycling market for various purposes such as building materials.” The foam materials that would otherwise be tamped down into landfills are instead made useful and profitable again.

Rancho Cucamonga’s recycling program is perhaps most interesting in the context of the city’s recent adoption of a 2007 ban on foam products at city facilities and city-sponsored events.  When informed of the growing implementation of foam recycling programs across the state, the City elected to try recycling as a productive alternative while it weighed future policies toward foam. Though full data is not yet available from the city’s first year of curbside recycling, Ceballos stated, “When the pilot program was introduced, City staff discussed the possibility of repealing the ban if the pilot becomes a permanent program.”

Forbes Ranks the Most Toxic Cities in America; 4 CA Metro Areas Make the Top 10

Forbes has released a list ranking the most toxic cities in America, and while a California metro area didn’t nab the top spot, there are still 4 California cities that rank in the top 10. The rankings were based on air quality, smog, water quality, toxic release, and hazardous waste, among other factors. Coming in number one is Philadelphia, partly due to a great number of sites that contain hazardous waste but are no longer in use. As for California cities, take Bakersfield, which comes in number two. The California city reportedly had 43 days of unhealthy air quality days, which is quite a high number in comparison to most other cities. In addition, in 2009 there were 2.2 million pounds of on-site toxic releases. The top 10 are as follows:

1. Philadelphia, PA
2. Bakersfield, CA
3. Fresno, CA
4. New York, NY
5. Baton Rouge, LA
6. Los Angeles, CA
7. Houston, Texas
8. St. Louis, Mo
9. Salt Lake City, Utah
10. Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

Read more about the rankings here.

Sierra Club Criticizes OC Cities for Charging High Fees for Solar Installation Permits

The Sierra Club is dishing out criticism for Orange County cities that charge large fees for solar installation permits. There is a wide variation in prices that are being charged by OC cities, with some actually charging no fee at all. Specifically, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Mission Viejo and Laguna Beach do not require such permits. San Clemente stands at the top with the most expensive fee, reaching almost $14,000 for installing solar panels. According to a survey done by the Sierra Club, the average price in an Orange County city is around $3,900. The outfit has mounted a campaign to encourage local governments to lower their prices for the sake of the environment. So far the cities of Tustin, Buena Park, Aliso Viejo, Huntington Beach, and Fullerton have all lowered their prices while 8 other cities have said they will consider a reduction. The OC Register reports:

“The time needed for city staff to review and inspect a commercial solar project is not that much more than the time needed to review and inspect smaller, residential projects, the Sierra Club says. It found that it took about two to three times longer for city staffers to process a large, 100 kW solar project than it took them to process a small 10 kW project – though the fees were up to 10 times greater for the big project than the little one. ‘Basing fees on the value of the solar equipment inflates permit costs to unreasonably high levels, especially for larger, more expensive solar power projects,’ the Sierra Club said. ‘To recover costs, therefore, permit fees should be based on specific review times and billable hourly rates and not on … project valuations.’”

The cities that charge the highest fees are as follows:

• San Clemente $13,818
• Orange $11,540
• Fountain Valley $11,179
• Cypress * $9,495
• Garden Grove * $9,264
• Laguna Woods * $9,119
• Yorba Linda * $7,967
• Costa Mesa * $7,464
• Westminster * $6,735
• Seal Beach * $6,272

You can view the full report here.

The study’s authors also developed a free, public fee calculator spreadsheet to help municipalities determine cost recovery, which can be viewed on the report’s website. 

 

Tree Sitters & Protestors Can’t Stop Arcadia Oak Grove from Being Cut Down

Tree sitters and activists were left in tears and full of anger recently as more than 200 oaks and sycamores were cleared in the city of Arcadia. Many of the activists sat in trees in order to halt bulldozers that were making their way through the grove in order to turn the site into a place for 500,000 cubic yards of silt, rocks and vegetation that will be scooped out of the Santa Anita Reservoir. One protestor stated, “It's our last stand. This is all about the rights of trees.” However, their efforts were ultimately unproductive, as authorities were on hand to make sure the project went forward smoothly. The LA Times reports:

“County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who represents the nearby communities, negotiated a 30-day moratorium in December to study alternatives that might spare the trees. The county concluded that its original plan was the most feasible option, and proceeded Wednesday morning. Tree sitters, including John Quigley, a veteran of such protests, entered the site at 4 a.m. and remained in three trees until they were taken into custody shortly before 8 p.m. Earlier, Public Works spokesman Bob Spencer said he expected the trees to be cleared within two days. ‘The wood will stay onsite,’ he said. ‘It will be chipped and used as ground cover. Some of the stumps will be left to rot as part of the natural decaying process.’”

Overall there were four people arrested for trespassing and resisting or obstructing a police officer. While many residents and activists were sad to see the small grove go, the county emphasized that “flood-control authorities regard it as designated spreading grounds for storm debris that just happens to have trees on it,” according to the LA Times. Read more here.