How San Francisco can lead the nation into energy independence with cutting-edge, environmentally sound public power. Green city | September 26, 2001 | SFBG News Green city By Rachel Brahinsky Just a few of the renewable energy projects that could turn San Francisco into a green city: 1. Rooftop solar electric systems on city homes and buildings 2. Solar "carport" on the Fifth Street and Mission garage 3. Cogeneration plant at General Hospital 4. Solar panels on covered reservoirs like the University Mound 5. Small hydro projects and wind turbines at the Calaveras Reservoir 6. Wind power at Altamont Pass 7. Small hydro project at the Moccasin Reservoir 8. Small hydro project at the Cherry Reservoir 9. Re-wind the power generators near the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir SOARING ENERGY PRICES . Unstable governments in oil-rich parts of the world. No question, a future that relies on fossil fuels is a risky one. President George W. Bush has an easy answer: dominate the Middle East, and while you're at it, drill Alaska dry. But there is another way. And San Francisco could offer the nation – if not the world – a new vision, one that revolutionizes how energy is produced and delivered to your home. This November voters will be asked to approve four energy-related initiatives that, if passed, set the stage for the city to control at least 50 percent of its own energy, mostly using renewable, or "clean," power sources. Right now San Francisco uses a maximum of about 845 megawatts of power on the hottest summer day. (A megawatt is generally enough energy for 1,000 houses.) We've put together a plan, based on interviews with experts and activists, that would reduce that demand and then meet the city's energy needs with a minimal reliance on polluting fossil fuels by the end of the decade. Here's how it can work: Mandate energy efficiency The simplest and cheapest way to meet energy demand is to reduce it. San Francisco could slash 120 megawatts from its total almost immediately – just by installing energy-efficient lightbulbs. By the end of the decade, such measures could help the city cut its energy needs by more than 25 percent, or more than 200 megawatts. Develop an extensive solar power system San Francisco could reliably produce an astonishing amount of electricity – between 50 and 600 megawatts – using solar electric panels on homes, on business and city buildings, and on top of covered water reservoirs. Stabilize and increase hydroelectric generation along the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power system from Yosemite National Park to San Francisco Already the city's system consistently produces 240 megawatts; installing in-stream turbines along water pipelines and "re-winding" the generators near the O'Shaughnessy Dam could add another 60 to 80 megawatts of hydropower. If the city ends the contracts that oblige it to sell much of its power to Turlock and Modesto, the majority of this electricity would be available. Install wind turbines from San Francisco to Yosemite San Francisco owns more than 84,000 acres between the city limits and the Hetch Hetchy Dam. The Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs and the hills of Altamont Pass have been identified as sites for wind development. Projects could also be located off the coast. If the Board of Supervisors was willing to issue $300 million in revenue bonds over the next 10 years, the city could develop 300 megawatts of wind power, which could be counted on to yield about 105 megawatts consistently (since the wind doesn't always blow). Keep in-city fossil-fuel generation to 20 percent or less With all of this new renewable energy, the city could take over and shut down the Hunters Point plant now owned by Pacific Gas and Electric. And the current proposal to expand fossil-fuel generation at an aging plant on Potrero Hill by 540 megawatts would become obsolete. The city could then build a network of small cogeneration power plants at places such as San Francisco General Hospital and retrofit the plant at Potrero Hill to use the cleanest technology possible. Invest in new technologies Already the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is considering locating fuel cells (which use hydrogen to make electricity) at the Youth Guidance Center and Kezar Stadium. In addition, the SFPUC could install microturbines (which run on steam) at the San Francisco Zoo, Laguna Honda Hospital, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Those sources could produce another 40 megawatts. PG estimates the city will need about 1,145 megawatts of energy at peak times by 2011. That's almost certainly an overestimate, but even if the city sees significant growth and fails to make major advances in conservation, renewable energy could meet most of the demand. With at least 50 megawatts of solar power, 105 megawatts of wind power, 300 megawatts of hydropower, 40 megawatts from new technologies, and at least another 200 saved through efficiency, San Francisco would need to generate only 150 megawatts from fossil fuels to meet its current 845-megawatt demand. There will still be more power available on Potrero Hill for emergencies and to cover the city's agreement to dish out about 60 megawatts for the airport and municipal water-treatment facilities. And if the city's power needs rise as PG predicts they will, San Francisco would buy from outside providers for backup power (purchased in long-term contracts), for times when the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow. So why don't we have such a system now? Simple. PG is in charge. And the company has no incentive to promote real conservation or to develop renewable energy. PG deals with power the way any private corporation deals with its product: generate and sell as much as possible to profit as much as possible. But that could change this fall when San Francisco voters will have the chance to kick out PG and replace it with a locally owned municipal utility. "The voters saying yes to $100 million for renewables [which is allocated through one of the energy initiatives] has national implications," Ed Smeloff, the SFPUC's assistant general manager for power policy, told us. "Never in a city election have the voters voted for that much money to go to renewable technologies." And with public power, Smeloff said, the move to a renewables-based energy system could move quickly, because the city would be in charge of its own energy decisions. "We can begin to see results with efficiency and renewables within a year," he told us. "There's no reason to wait. But to do the larger picture, the wind and all the hydro, you'd do better with a municipal utility." Step one: Use less The single most environmentally sound, most renewable – and cheapest – source of energy is conservation. Large-scale, city-managed programs to use less power could cut energy needs dramatically. Lighting is a good place to start. Replacing lightbulbs with energy-efficient (compact fluorescent) bulbs can cut energy used for lights by 75 percent, according to Alice Hubbard and Clay Fong, authors of The Community Energy Workbook (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1995). Locally, in city-owned buildings, tinkering with the lights has already shaved 10 percent off of municipal power needs this year, according to Smeloff. "In City Hall we've taken out every third fluorescent fixture, [and] we've changed lighting. Those things last a long time," he said. Every business in the city, especially the huge department and grocery stores, should be mandated to do the same, which would decrease commercial energy use by at least 10 percent as well. That would reduce the city load by as much as 65 megawatts. Rose Bell of Gaiam Real Goods, a Hopland-based supplier of environmentally sound products, told the Bay Guardian the city could cut demand quickly by handing out efficient lightbulbs. For $6 million the city could buy and give away 1.65 million efficient, compact fluorescent bulbs, enough for five bulbs in every household. If the bulbs replaced were about 100-watt strength, the city would save 120 megawatts of power. That's enough to close down the two backup fossil-fuel power plants at the Potrero Hill site, owned by the Georgia-based Mirant Corporation. Other efficiency measures the city could push: upgrading heating and cooling systems, installing efficient refrigerators, and replacing stop-light bulbs. The solar solution Solar energy has come a long way from the days when panels on the roof were used to heat water. These days photovoltaic, or solar electric, cells efficiently turn sunlight into electricity. Still, solar power in San Francisco is often dismissed as a fantasy. This foggy city, critics charge, is no place to depend on the power of the sun. But there's evidence the city has sufficient solar radiation to support between 240 and 600 megawatts of rooftop solar electric power. That's according to a June 1 study by Karina Garbesi and Emily Bartholomew for Golden Gate University Law School's Environmental Law and Justice Clinic. Others, including Smeloff, contend that 50 megawatts is a more realistic goal until a roof-by-roof survey is undertaken. But even at 50 megawatts, San Francisco's system would be the largest solar utility in the world. Smeloff envisions using covered reservoirs like the 800,000-square-foot University Mound in the Excelsior; parking garages such as the garage at Fifth and Mission Streets (with rooftop solar panels constructed like carports); and the roofs of the Moscone Center and Housing Authority properties throughout the city. There are also good spots for solar power along the Hetch Hetchy waterway, such as the Crystal Springs Reservoir, about 16 miles south of San Francisco. The city is already in the planning stages for some of these projects. If voters approve Proposition B, sponsored by Sup. Mark Leno, $100 million will be available immediately, which would pay for between 10 and 25 megawatts of solar power, depending on state subsidies. The other solar-bond measure, Sup. Tom Ammiano's Proposition H, would give the Board of Supervisors the authority to invest in city-managed solar power on residential buildings. Under Ammiano's plan the city's solar program would be virtually endless. Essentially, the megawatt potential would be limited only by space and by the Board of Supervisors' willingness to issue new bonds. Both measures would be funded by revenue bonds, which would be paid off by profits on solar power sales, not by tax dollars. The money spent to develop the solar projects would represent a huge injection in the state's renewable-power industry and would be more than a feel-good move toward clean power. The level of spending that the two measures could represent would go a long way toward making solar power as cheap as fossil fuels. "Right now it's in a cottage-industry state," Danny Kennedy, campaign coordinator for Greenpeace's California global warming campaign, told us. "We need to create the demand so that manufacturers start to create photovoltaics en masse, and as they do this, the cost will become competitive." If San Francisco approves the solar plans, advocates say, solar manufacturers will flock to the state. If other cities follow, California could have a permanent impact on the industry worldwide. Wind and water In northern California the potential for wind power is nearly limitless. Hundreds of acres San Francisco owns outside of the city are ripe for developing wind power projects. The SFPUC has already identified sites at Calaveras Reservoir near Sunol, for example, and the hills at Altamont Pass near Livermore. The city could also follow the model of Denmark, which gets a sixth of its power from wind, by developing wind farms off the coast. In-city wind power might also be an option. It's a dense city, but Mike Bergey of the Oklahoma-based Bergey Windpower suggests that San Francisco could handle 10 to 30 megawatts of "small wind" generation. It works best on sites that are a half acre or larger. And then there's hydroelectric power. A portion of the city's energy already comes from the city-owned hydroelectric system that begins in Yosemite National Park with the O'Shaughnessy Dam, but it's only a relatively limited amount. That's because the city has never enforced the Raker Act, the 1913 federal law that required San Francisco to use the dam to generate public power for its residents and businesses. Today Hetch Hetchy power goes to the airport, city buildings, and services such as Muni. And a sizable portion of it is shipped to the Central Valley to serve the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts. However, the city is negotiating to get out of the long-term contracts that require San Francisco to sell to the Central Valley districts. Doing so would free up enough power to meet about 10 percent of the city's needs (see "Finally! Contract Canceled," 8/15/01). Smeloff's team at the SFPUC has identified several sites for small hydroelectric projects that would essentially squeeze more energy out of the existing infrastructure. A small turbine inside a water pipeline at the Calaveras Reservoir, a turbine in the Moccasin Reservoir bypass, and another at the Cherry Reservoir near Yosemite would beef up power production by 60 megawatts or more. Even more power could come from re-winding the coils that produce energy in the generators on the Hetch Hetchy system. Re-winding, Smeloff told us, would probably raise power production by about 5 percent, adding about 12 megawatts to the power the system reliably produces. Reducing fossil fuels The key to a sound energy policy is reducing reliance on fossil fuels. It's a complicated issue. Any new public power agency will have to address the fact that there is only one set of transmission lines that brings power up the peninsula. The lines are old and in disrepair, and using only one route in and out of the city leaves San Francisco vulnerable to blackouts. Because the lines can't carry all of the power the city needs, about 400 megawatts of power must be generated inside the city, according to Smeloff. It's also a good idea to have power sources in the city in case of an earthquake. The two existing plants in town – the Hunters Point and the Potrero plants – are old, fossil fuel-burning facilities, located in low-income, predominantly black neighborhoods. For years environmentalists and community residents have said the power plants are largely to blame for serious health problems, including widespread asthma and high rates of breast cancer. Almost everyone agrees the Hunters Point plant should be shut down, and many activists would ultimately like to get rid of Potrero, too. So how do you replace that power? Many renewables advocates, including Paul Fenn of the Oakland-based Local Power, say the city should aim to rid itself of fossil fuels completely. Others point out that, as long as natural gas supplies are steady, gas plants can be counted on to produce energy any time of day, no matter the weather. One piece of the puzzle might be for the city to build a series of small cogeneration plants. "Cogen" plants run on natural gas but use it more efficiently because they simultaneously produce both heat and electricity. Smeloff suggests using cogeneration in places such as S.F. General Hospital, where reliable power is a matter of life and death. The city is already looking into fixing up an old cogen plant at the hospital and is considering others all over the city: at City College, the Hall of Justice, and the Jerrold Sewage plant in Bayview-Hunters Point and on Treasure Island. Smeloff envisions using cogeneration to help stabilize the energy supply. Though no neighborhood wants a fossil fuel plant, residents might be willing to accept a small cogeneration plant instead, thus democratizing the impact of fossil fuels on the city. Public power None of this is likely to happen unless the voters pass at least one of the two public power measures, Propositions I and F, on the November ballot. A public power agency, operating with a strong voter mandate, would be perfectly positioned to usher in a new energy order. A full-scale green-power effort could kick-start alternative energy efforts nationwide. And it wouldn't be the first time government intervention helped get a burgeoning technology on its feet. Greenpeace's Kennedy points to the success of high-tech companies in Silicon Valley. "The story behind that story is that at its infancy the state of California gave it tax credits, gave it land grants, and guaranteed purchase of technology that allowed those companies to ultimately boom and eventually become the market force they are today," he said. San Francisco's energy future Energy source megawatts Solar power 50 Hydropower 300 Wind power 105 Fuel cells and other 40 Natural gas 150 Long-term contracts 300 Efficiency 200 Total 1145 Amory Lovins, alternative-energy guru and cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colo., told San Francisco's Commonwealth Club in July that a public utility, founded on the right principles, could serve as an example. "Cities like San Francisco have a great opportunity to define a model 'best buys first' public utility that integrates efficiency, renewables, fuel cells, and other decentralized generation to make its system more reliable," he said. With solar power and efficiencies, Lovins said, his home electricity bill is only about $5 a month. For proponents of the public and solar power initiatives, that's the model to follow. For the Bay Guardian's past coverage on renewable energy and public power, see "The Green Choice [http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/36/mud.html] ," 6/7/00, and "The Energy Crossroads [http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/20/20battle.html] ," 2/14/01. Read more about public and solar power in Who Owns the Sun?, by Dan Berman and John O'Connor (Chelsea Green, 1995). Get a copy of Karina Garbesi and Emily Bartholomew's study on solar power by calling Golden Gate University Law School's Environmental Law and Justice Clinic at (415) 442-6647. Read about the state-wide solar campaign at www.cleanenergynow.org [http://www.cleanenergynow.org] . More information about the public power campaign is available at www.sfbmud.org [http://www.sfbmud.org] . Read the full text of Amory Lovins speech at www.rmi.org/images/other/E-CwealthClub.pdf [http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-CwealthClub.pdf] . Read the Bay Guardian's two-hour interview with Smeloff at www.sfbg.com/News/35/46/46int.html [http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/46/46int.html] . E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com [rachel@sfbg.com] . [http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]