Power Link(s)
Emblematic 123-mile Line from Imperial Valley to San Diego
SDG&E’s Power Link is to slated to stretch 123 miles from solar farms of Imperial County to San Diego, where it will deliver power for 685,000 homes. It’s been called the most rigorously reviewed infrastructure project in the state’s history*. It’s certainly been a lightning rod for environmental opposition.
Personally, I don’t get it.
My understanding of the processes involved in the planning and obtaining of approval for the addition of any new transmission lines to the grid is that they are exorbitantly onerous.
Citing the history of the transmission lines that connected the Tehachapi Pass wind farms to Los Angeles, as reported by Thomas L. Friedman in “Hot, Flat, and Crowded,” it appears that the power companies choose their best route according to geography. Then they go to battle for as much as a dozen years. The battle involves environmental reviews and jurisdictional hurdles between stake holders, including state and federal land agencies and also the national forests. Much of the battle has to do with the fact that utilities are intent upon routing new transmission lines through pristine landscapes. So it really takes a dozen years? Isn’t there something to be said for avoiding conflict?
Conflict is expensive in a number of ways.
Costs almost always go up. If the original projected cost of a transmission line is two billion dollars, how much more will the project cost a dozen years later? Surely there would be savings to be had if the project encounters less (or no) opposition and could be implemented more quickly. Not only would the cost of construction pencil out much nearer to original projections, but that would also put the transmission lines into service many years sooner - which probably has an even greater monetary value.
So you ask, how could we reduce opposition and lower regulatory hurdles?
How about the obvious: whenever and wherever possible, new transmission lines should be sited along existing power corridors. Where there are no existing power corridors, the lines should follow highways.
The advantages are many:
- There’s little rationale for environmental opposition to a project that runs down a corridor already marred by an existing phalanx of transmission towers, or an existing highway, or a combination of both.
- Environmental review and permitting could and “should” be simplified and streamlined for transmission projects that follow existing corridors.
- Existing corridors include ready road access, both for construction and maintenance which also reduces cost.
- Recently, some of Southern California’s most devastating wildfires were caused by transmission lines that sparked into overgrown brush. To avoid future liabilities, power companies will need to clear the undergrowth at or near transmission lines. It would be far less expensive for them to maintain brush abatement along fewer, but more intensely utilized corridors.
- Simplified approval means reduced litigation and permitting costs which result in reduced project costs.
- Expedited permitting means that construction costs are kept closer to original estimates.
- Fast track permitting that leads to quicker construction would also translate into earlier utilization, which also has a monetary value.
- The cost savings outlined above would, in all but the most extreme cases, outweigh the potential for additional expense of longer transmission lines necessitated to follow existing corridors.
- The smart grid would be here sooner, instead of later.
So why don’t we get smarter about planning and mapping? Smarter utility planners would get their smart grid quicker and at less total cost - benefiting not only the utilities but also both to the rate payers and the environment.
–
*I wonder if that’s utility co. hyperbole or if it really has attained more attention and closer examination than projects like the Diablo Canyon of the 1970’s.
Proposed Carlsbad NRG Plant
Massive Gas Fired Power Plant Planned for Carlsbad Coast
The NRG plant planned for Carlsbad is unsustainable legacy infrastructure and must be stopped. While many local citizens’ concerns may be centered on the location near the beach, in my opinion, the biggest reason to oppose this plant is that it represents a continuation of the old gray economy precisely when we must usher in a new green economy. Legacy power generation is also terribly inefficient; over 50% of the fuel burned goes to heat waste.
Investment in legacy infrastructure is bad investment. Now’s the time for investment in distributed or centralized sustainable alternative energy; to invest in the world we want our children to inherit – and there is no time left to waste on ill conceived legacy infrastructure.
Yes, gas fired electricity is cleaner than coal and is both safer and faster to implement than nuclear but it’s not clean, not sustainable, and it has a substantial carbon footprint. Gas fired electricity contributes to global climate change and spews air-borne pollution that will cause to health problems for many of our neighbors.
To those who would say, “But we need the power.” If opponents of the NRG plant were to agree, saying, “Yes we need more power.” I’m quite sure that they’d complete that thought with, “But we need to be smarter about where we get our power.” The best source of power is conservation. Since we all waste power, that’s the first, easiest step to meeting power needs. After conservation, local distributed solar – on rooftops and fresh ideas like solar groves in parking lots (www.envisionsolar.com) make sense. Concentrated solar and wind farms would be yet another step.
But we don’t need the power. In the old gray economy, operating off the dumb grid, power companies must have standing generation capacity to meet peak demand — at late afternoon on about five of the hottest days of summer. “If” there were a need, the immediate, easy method to meet that need would be conservation; the least expensive of electricity is efficiency and conservation.
Provided our state and nation move forward to smarten the grid and develop reliable, sustainable, non-polluting energy, this plant will soon be an artifact of bad planning. That spells ratepayer boondoggle. Whether sited at the beach or in an invisible remote canyon it’s bad for everyone, including those who would build it.
To those who say, “Look at the jobs that will be lost if we don’t build this plant.” Opponents respond, “E-x-a-c-t-l-y! We agree. Jobs are important here. That’s also why we oppose the NRG plant: economists indicate that a renewable power facility would generate more than twice as many jobs, both construction and permanent. In a time when jobs are precious, that’s not a trivial concern.
This is more than just a local issue. It’s an international issue crucial to the survival of our species. As Nobu Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), stated recently at the November 2008 London World Energy Outlook, “Current trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable — environmentally, economically, and socially. They can and must be altered.”
The gas fired NRG power plant proposed for Carlsbad is a wrong-headed continuation of the unsustainable legacy power infrastructure and must be stopped. From 2009 forward, we should only allow clean, renewable power generation to be built. Anything else is a nail in each of our children’s coffins.
This isn’t a Roadrunner Cartoon. There won’t be a moment of recognition, mid-air, when we can claw our way back to the cliff. In the real world, the gray economy is like this: we’re all in the same gray vehicle, in a fog, hurtling towards a cliff. Most of us know the cliff is there, and we also know that we need to apply the brakes, so why can’t we agree that now is the time to stop and not merely change, but… find direction?
Inaugural Post Script
The Time Is NOW!
Now that we’ve stepped into a new era of imagination, it’s time for the possible to be given its due. In that world, there’s at least one more step that can be contemplated, one that would take us beyond the goal of sustainability. And that is restoration.
Imagining a future where sustainability becomes the norm, then and there (but also here and now) the project of restoration becomes ever more pertinent, plausible and even possible. Because it is necessary.
Imagine a time when mankind, in a global action, begins to carefully, meticulously, lovingly restore the lands, the forests, the waters and seas to their aboriginal, vibrant, life-supporting thriving beauty. Brown fields burst into vegetable gardens. Crumbling corals, no longer choked in agricultural effluent, begin to re-grow, teeming with fish and invertebrates. Strip mines start to slowly heal as incipient forests sprout from those wounds. Imagine when the air blown west across the Pacific is no longer laden with toxic pollution that comes tandem with mountains of consumer “goods” that no one really needs, which – disposed too soon — have too short a useful life when measured against their true and total cost.
Imagine a future where man has learned to begin living in sustainable harmony with each other and with the planet, and we then turn our attention to healing our own pasts and to restoring our planet, which we sometimes used to call, “god’s green earth.”
Hierarchy of Green™
Only Sustainability is Sustainable.
Perhaps you had crayons or colored pencils when you were a child. If you were fortunate, then you had a lot more colors than just the basic red, green, yellow and blue. If so, then you’ll recall that there were many shades of green. The same is true with the gathering effort to green our homes, our workplaces, our cities, and our economy; there are many shades - or degrees - of green.
Already in two areas of this site, I’ve referenced the “Hierarchy of Green™,” which is my concept of the five basic shades of green. Admittedly, I’d thought the concept so simple that it needed no explanation. But, subject to a comment I received from one of my more ardent supporters, I’m going to develop this idea more fully.
To begin with, this hierarchy is about progress and is therefore a cumulative progression. Thus, the higher an enterprise or activity sits in the “Hierarchy of Green™,” the greater the accomplishment while also including all the achievements that were attained at the lower levels:
5. Sustainable
4. Renewable
3. Carbon neutral
2. Clean technology
1. Environmentally responsible
So, beginning at the bottom, let’s talk about what it means to be “environmentally conscious or responsible.”
Environmentally Responsible:
In a perfect world, everyone would have brought the nascent awareness of the 1970’s ecology movement into the present and would be conscious of their impact on the environment. They would recycle their soda cans, eat a sensible diet that lessens their personal burden upon the planet, and they would probably want to have a livelihood that reflects the notion of preserving this planet for future generations. So both at home and at work, we would choose products with minimal packaging and reduced toxic impacts. At work, company collateral would be printed on recycled paper while the offices themselves would - to the greatest extent possible - operate with electronic documents. Plus, both at home and at work, the furnishings, carpets and architecture would be LEED certified or closely equivalent.
By extension, then, a company that is environmentally responsible would establish best practices for environmental responsibility throughout all aspects of the business as well as all phases of production. This would include the implementation of a program of “Extended Producer Responsibility.”
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a strategy designed to integrate environmental costs associated with products throughout their life cycles into the market price of the products. For example, we can no longer exclude the costs of airborne pollution from the total cost of coal-fired production of electricity since there are health costs that must be paid, eventually. Similarly, the price of a gallon of gasoline is artificially low because it does not include the costs incurred by humanity as we begin to experience the adverse effects of global climate change.
Specifically applied to a single manufacturing process as, for example, a tire factory, extended producer responsibility imposes accountability over the entire life cycle of the tires and may even include the packaging. This means that the tire manufacturer would be required to be either financially or physically responsible for the tires after their useful life. This would mean that they must either take back the worn tires and manage them through reuse or recycling, or else delegate the responsibility to a third party, or producer responsibility organization (PRO).
EPR moves the responsibility for waste associated with a manufacturer’s activities from government and back to private industry, thus obliging producers, importers and/or sellers to internalize waste management costs into their product prices. EPR is a method for arriving at the total cost of production and including that total cost into the price of the product at the time of sale, rather than deferring that cost to be paid indirectly through adverse consequences felt by others – whether near or far, or by current or future generations.
Clean Tech:
Clean Tech, or Clean Technology, is as the term implies, a technology that’s clean and has no toxic byproducts or effluents. Ideally, in the clean tech sector, all the sub-process and activities of the humans employed within a clean tech operation would be performed with utmost environmental consciousness and responsibility. Whenever applicable, EPR would be part of the full cycle of a clean tech operation.
For the most part, the aim of clean tech is to create energy – whether electricity or fuels – with a smaller environmental footprint. It can be broadened to include the construction of green buildings that are both more energy efficient and environmentally benign.
Typically, clean technologies include renewable energy such as wind and solar power, biomass power, hydropower, biofuels, and related fields. It may also include information technology, green transportation, high efficiency electric motors, LED lighting, and energy efficient appliances.
The operative limitation to clean tech is that it is merely cleaner and more efficient. While greater and cleaner efficiency is better it’s not necessarily carbon neutral, nor renewable or sustainable.
Carbon Neutral:
Carbon Neutral was the New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2006.
CO2 is carbon dioxide gas, which is produced in many human induced processes, most notably the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. CO2 gas is the primary greenhouse gas and the leading culprit in climate change.
Being carbon neutral, or having a zero carbon footprint, means that a process obtains net zero carbon emission by balancing the amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount that is either sequestered or offset. The concept of carbon neutrality can be extended to include other greenhouse gases. The term climate neutral is somewhat interchangeable.
The best practice for organizations and individuals seeking carbon neutral status entails reducing and/or avoiding carbon emissions first so that emission are reduce to the extent that only unavoidable emissions need to be offset in order to arrive at a carbon neutral position.
Carbon neutral can be achieved in two ways: (1a) by balancing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from the burning fossil fuels with renewable energy that creates a similar amount of useful energy, thereby compensating for the carbon emissions, or (1b) in a post-carbon economy, by using only renewable energies that don’t produce carbon dioxide, or (2) by “carbon offsetting,” which involves paying others to remove or sequester an equivalent of 100% of the carbon dioxide emitted. Examples include planting trees, funding ‘carbon projects’ that are intended to prevent future greenhouse gas emissions, or buying carbon credits. Offsets are commonly used together with energy conservation measures.
But carbon neutrality only addresses the issues associated with greenhouse gasses, primarily climate change. Plus, offsets and balancing are not necessarily clean tech or renewable. Some may argue that clean tech is superior to carbon neutral, but with climate change looming over the planet, it seems clear that the near term priority is carbon neutrality.
Renewable:
Renewable is a notch above carbon-neutral. (Obviously gasoline, coal, natural gas, diesel, and other commodities derived from fossil fuels are non-renewable.) Unlike fossil fuels, if properly managed, a renewable resource can have a sustainable yield. There are at least two connotations to the idea of renewability, the most prominent being renewable resources and renewable processes.
Natural resources that are replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable to or faster than their rate of consumption are considered renewable. These renewable resources are often commodities - such as fresh water, wood and paper, or leather - yet are replenished through careful stewardship of the resource. Other natural renewable resources such as geothermal power and biomass may also require careful management to avoid exceeding the environment’s capacity to replenish them.
A renewable process is one that relies upon perpetual resources such as solar radiation, ocean tides, winds and hydroelectricity. In this context the term may have a connotation of sustainability of the natural environment. However, human attempts to harness such resources (as for example deriving hydroelectricity from dams) can have adverse impacts.
While renewability is good, it is not necessarily sustainable because it does not (as in the example of hydroelectric power) take a holistic approach. At its best, renewability coupled with a life cycle assessment provides a systematic means of evaluating and providing for the long term use of a resource. But that is probably not enough. If we want our species and planet to thrive, the level of attainment to which all human activity should aspire is sustainability.
Sustainable:
In 1983, the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainability as, “A way of living that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Now there is irrefutable scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that we need to make an effort to bring our use of the environment back to within sustainable limits. Unsustainability is most clearly expressed in the human engendered phenomenon of climate change, or global warming.
Worldwide sustainability is only going to be achieved by innumerable separate efforts in nearly every spot across the globe. Spot sustainability is achieved when a process or industry is clean, has no carbon footprint, and is infinitely repeatable without resource depletion, toxicity, or other damage to the environment. Dire threats of global warming aside, the problem most of us have with the concept of living sustainably is the perception that this is not easily achieved. Yet it is achievable if we view the project as a puzzle and work diligently to get each and every piece into place. The synergy between spots, or pieces of the puzzle, can be completely realized in the concept of Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Design.
By modeling human industry on nature’s processes, Cradle to Cradle Design is a biomimetic approach to the design of systems where materials are viewed as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. The premise of C2C is that industry can protect and enrich ecosystems and nature’s biological metabolism while also maintaining a safe, productive technical metabolism for the high-quality use and circulation of both organic and synthetic materials.
By articulating an achievable holistic economic, industrial, and social framework, the objective of C2C is to create systems that are not just efficient but essentially waste free. As such, C2C isn’t limited to industrial design and manufacturing. It has broad promise for application to most aspects of human civilization, including urban environments, buildings, economics, and social systems. “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things,” published in 2002 by Braungart & McDonough, is a manifesto for this model of biomimetic production.
In recent years, sustainability has been complicated by its application to nearly every facet of life on Earth, including biological organization (wetlands, prairies and forests), human organization (ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities), and human activities and disciplines (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy). Yet, as evinced in the concept of C2C, sustainability might well be regarded as the natural evolution of human civilization when we need new ways of thinking and doing to sustain our species’ existence on Earth.
So when we talk about green, we should be mindful that while any shade of green is good, sustainability is the only shade that is sustainable; all other levels of green serve merely as steps toward the accomplishment of sustainability. In the “Hierarchy of Green™” sustainability sets the bar properly high. Only sustainability is sustainable.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(Note: Although much of the thought is orginal, specific definitions within this explanation were developed from a number of sources, including Wikipedia.)
Sustainability Consulting
What is Sustainability Consulting?
The acme of green is sustainability. Sustainability is achieved when a process or industry is clean, has no carbon footprint, and is infinitely repeatable without resource depletion, toxicity, or other damage to the environment.
That said, it is better to be environmentally responsible than irresponsible, just as it’s better to be operating a clean technology rather than a technology that’s simply environmentally responsible. And carbon-neutral is preferable to clean tech, while renewable is a notch above carbon neutral. But, if we want our species and planet to thrive, then the level of attainment to which all human activity should aspire is sustainability.
So when we talk about green, we should be mindful that while green is good, only sustainability is sustainable; all other levels of green lead to eventual collapse. In the “Hierarchy of Green™” sustainability sets the bar properly high. Only sustainability is sustainable.
If we don’t set the bar high, it becomes a stumbling block. Now, at the close of 2008, after decades of inaction due to lies and misinformation it is critically important that we green our economies, our cities and our homes. Humanity doesn’t have any more time to be stumbling towards green.
So today I want to talk about the business of greening business. If we agree that it is imperative for large scale business activity to go green, then it should be obvious that a change from the old gray to the new green economy can’t be limited to businesses that operate in the green sector or are either environmentally focused or already working responsibly.
Businesses change for many reasons. External factors, such as the recent economic downturn, often change businesses without their willing participation. But there are other changes which, even when chosen, can be difficult to achieve. This may often be the case with the project of changing a business to become green. Since most executives have built their careers on issues of market share and business development, they are not prepared to ride the green wave; rather, they are likely to wipe out. As such moving from gray to green is not going to be easy.
Many businesses will want to hire an outside consultant to guide them through the transition. If a business is large enough, it may make sense to create a high level position within the company such as a Chief Sustainability Officer. Even so, the services of a qualified consultant may provide valuable knowledge about green issues. The consultant must understand the risks, challenges, and opportunities inherent in transitioning from gray to green and will motivate the business to commitment and action. The consultant will serve as a guide to competing and succeeding according to new, green rules and will be alert to act on opportunities while avoiding the risks of emerging environmental issues. Additionally, a strong consultant will ensure compliance with regulations: both existing regulations to reduce pollution, as well as proactively addressing future legislation, such as pending Federal & State RES (renewable energy standards)
Increasingly, publicly-traded businesses will have an incentive to exceed the letter of the law in reporting their environmental footprint. That’s because prudent investors want to be informed of risks that may jeopardize their investment; responsibility for a company’s contributions to climate change, environmental degradation and related issues may constitute exposure to lawsuits for a range of consequences, such as failing to mitigate activities that contribute to climate change. In order to qualify at any level in the “hierarchy of green™,” businesses need to limit their exposure and engage these issues by proactively remediating past environmental transgressions while also publishing and initiating plans to reduce, resolve and abate their contribution to climate and environmental problems. Soon, under the current rules of financial disclosure, annual reports are likely to address these issues and will describe the company’s current climate footprint as well as the programs either in effect or in planning to either offset or reduce their environmental footprint. Businesses that aren’t already moving in this direction run the risk of losing investors. A top-notch sustainability consultant will lead the change in this area as well.
As regards proactive change, while it is still true that far too many businesses have adopted a wait-and-see attitude, both consumer-driven change and legislative directives are inevitable. Businesses that adapt early and substantively (without merely greenwashing their image) will have a competitive advantage. As such, the value of a consultant will be best measured in terms of the long-range results that will be delivered as a result of their intervention.
It’s also true that smart entrepreneurs and business leaders have always found tremendous opportunity in a change. Change is the fulcrum of good business. Good business always translates into a strong bottom line.
Furthermore, enlightened business leaders understand that reducing their company’s carbon footprint is not only essential to remain competitive, but that it’s also the right thing to do. As Glenn Croston states in his book, 75 Green Businesses You Can Start to Make Money and Make a Difference, “Business leaders are realizing that being green is something they want and need to do to build a better world and a better business.” Besides, he continues, “Businesses without a good handle on their environmental footprints may lose customers.”
Increasingly, over this coming century, at the end of each day, when the receipts are counted, green will matter in two ways: for our species to survive, we must green our economies. For our businesses to survive and thrive, we must make money. Both are green, both are good, both are compatible.
The Time is NOW!
