Meeting Reminder

[Updike, William (DDOE)]

Hello all,

 

It would be really helpful if prior to our next meeting on Thursday (6:00-8:00pm, Room 1117 in One Judiciary Square), the group could think about how to align all of our target goals.   For example, the Institute for Local Self Reliance did a study (see attached) that said the District could offset a total 19% of energy consumption (2007 demand numbers) using rooftop solar (generation inside the city limits), and another 13% using CHP (we don’t have wind capacity and the study didn’t include tidal/river generation, waste-to-energy, biomass, etc.).   But we have voted on these goals:

 

35% renewable by 2025

65% renewable by 2050

and

5% energy reductions by 2015

25% energy reductions by 2025

60% energy reductions by 2035

 

There is a green roof study of DC that stated that we have about 75 million square feet of potential green roof space in the District (assuming 80% of total area of roofs greater than 10,000 square feet).  If we translated that into solar, it would add up to around 215-380 MW of capacity (depending on the panel efficiencies and other things).  Now, 80% coverage is overly generous of course given that some plants can grow in shade and solar doesn’t.   But, given that the green roof study was only for buildings greater than 10,000 square feet, which leaves out most single family homes in the District, perhaps the number is OK to use for now.  215-380MW would offset a small percentage of current total consumption.   According to the ILSR study, the District would need 32.3% of its total land area in order to be totally self-reliant, which of course is not likely. 

 

The SEU is charged with reducing energy consumption in the District by 1% per year, and our energy efficiency targets are more than twice that over time and nearly triple that by 2035.  So we need to figure out how to augment what the SEU is doing to achieve our targets.  This also does not factor in growth in energy demand due to new development and the increase in the number of residents in DC.

 

So thinking on how we get there would also be very useful as we further refine our goals and actions.  Just some food for thought—see you all at our next meeting!

 

Bill Updike

Program Analyst

Government of the District of Columbia

Department of the Environment

1200 First Street, NE 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 535-1337 - Direct

green.dc.gov

 

 

 

Join Mayor Gray’s One City • One Hire - 10,000 Jobs Campaign
“Putting District Residents Back to Work – One Hire at a Time”
Learn more at http://onecityonehire.org

 

[Matthew Slavin]

Bill,

As you know, there are two sub-groups working on proposals.

One is CATS – Clean Alternatives Technologies Standard – which aims at aggressive decarbonization by eliminating coal fired generation from the fuel mix that supplies electricity to District consumers – really a crossover between Energy and Climate Group goals.This would have the effect of reinforcing the District's RPS. The CATS group is having its first meeting tonight and we hope to have something to report to the larger Energy Group shortly.

The other sub-group underway is working on a proposal to establish an ECO – Energy Conservation Ordinance – for the District. This would have the goal of saving energy through efficacy measures. We plan on making a presentation to the Energy Group at Thursday's meeting on this. The ECO will reinforce the SEU's mandates.

Best,

Matt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable DC Energy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sustainabl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable-dc-e...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable-dc-energy?hl=en.

[Eugene Imhoff]

Bill -

     Also note that the Climate Sub-Group nominated the Mayor's phrase "Carbon-Free by '33" and this won the group vote by a large margin at joint Meeting 5 (UDC).

     As you point out, these goals are aggressive to the max.  They require replacing most of our current electrical energy sources (might be simple if we go nuclear but certainly isn't not if we don't).  Harder is transportation, where we need to eliminate fossil-fuel vehicles on DC streets.  The hardest of all is the built environment, where many of the most-efficient buildings still use natural gas as the preferred source for space-heating (and cooking for many!)

     How intrusive can we be?  I personally would love to see us carbon-free by '33 (though my stir-fries would suffer), but I don't think we can find a majority constituency that would support this over the extended period with all the sacrifices involved.

     As a result I expect we will end up with a two-tier set of recommendations.  One would be the ideal:  a picture of DC in 2023, 2033, 2043 that is where we should be if we had unlimited political and financial capital.  The second is the stretch-realistic picture - pushing the boundaries hard, but not enough to lose the voters and politicians.

     It is good to consider Matt Slavin's two efforts in this regard.  The energy conservation effort will be opposed by some building owners, but there is likely to be enough support by the green economy to keep it going.  The elimination of coal for DC electricity will probably not have major opposition nor raise electricity rates in the short term, so it is also in the stretch-realistic realm.

     But the combined efforts of these big programs would eliminate less than half of our present carbon footprint.  We would still be using lots of natural gas and petroleum at hundreds-of-thousands of DC sources and at natural gas-fired electrical generators outside of DC.  I expect we both consider this prospect as more than a bit daunting and humbling.

     - Gene

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Updike, William (DDOE) <william...@dc.gov> wrote:

[David Schwartzman]

While I can't participate in 3 Working Goups equally (my main focus has been in green economy), I do feel compelled to dissent from such a conservative goal as 65% renewable by 205.

Given the very likely increase in conversion efficiency expected for photovoltaics (r&d is now reaching 40%), even generating all the electricity with photovoltaics locally is very plausibly achievable by 2050, especially coupled with the goal of 60% energy reduction by 2035, and given the studies provided below. Further, photovoltaic supplied electricity can be supplemented by other renewable energy sources such as decentralized power using geothermal providing heating and cooling for homes and commercial property, and of course tapping into a regional grid supplied by off shore wind which could adequately supply a shift to mass transit and electric cars by 2050. 

100% renewable should be the goal for the energy working group and indeed Sustainable DC. Anything less will not effectively confront the threat of ever nearer tipping points being reached to climate catastrophe. We should be visionary and as radical as reality itself.

David Schwartzman

Professor, biogeochemist at Howard University

www.solarUtopia.org

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Updike, William (DDOE) <william...@dc.gov> wrote:

[Eugene Imhoff]

Prof. Schwartzman -

     No one in the work-groups is denying that we are spewing CO2 irresponsibly and ought to be slapped into reality.  The reality-check includes how technology is likely to evolve and how soon we can transform our profligate economy into one that is truly sustainable.  (I might also point out that sustainable may not mean carbon-zero, but reducing per capita emissions by 80%, a number compatible with the IPCC 450 ppm target.)

     That said, we definitely should include big improvements in solar panel efficiency in our projections.  Affordable rooftop solar panels a decade from now will likely have 50% higher efficiency than we have today.  By 2050, who knows.  For the near-term the super high-efficiency multi-junction cells are likely to be restricted to large solar installations with sun-tracking and cooling, not very likely on residences, but possible in some DC solar-fields.

     On another front, one of our present awkward issues is the advent of cheap natural gas, which may be encouraging the transition from coal for electricity generation, but is discouraging the next step to carbon-free sources for electricity, transport, and heating.  This suggests a great university project:  converting the abundant natural gas into hydrogen and storing the carbon.  A hydrogen energy economy is clearly a great final goal.

     - Gene

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable DC Climate" group.
To post to this group, send email to sustainable...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable-dc-cl...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable-dc-climate?hl=en.

[David Schwartzman]

Thanks for this response. Please see my own below...

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Eugene Imhoff <eugene...@gmail.com> wrote:

Prof. Schwartzman -

     No one in the work-groups is denying that we are spewing CO2 irresponsibly and ought to be slapped into reality.  The reality-check includes how technology is likely to evolve and how soon we can transform our profligate economy into one that is truly sustainable.  (I might also point out that sustainable may not mean carbon-zero, but reducing per capita emissions by 80%, a number compatible with the IPCC 450 ppm target.)

Many climate scientists, including Jim Hansen think this goal is irresponsible, rather it should be lower.

Lets invoke the precautionary principle

 

     That said, we definitely should include big improvements in solar panel efficiency in our projections.  Affordable rooftop solar panels a decade from now will likely have 50% higher efficiency than we have today.  By 2050, who knows.  For the near-term the super high-efficiency multi-junction cells are likely to be restricted to large solar installations with sun-tracking and cooling, not very likely on residences, but possible in some DC solar-fields.

All the more reason to set 100% renewables as our goal for 2050!  Please recall the charge given to us by Harriet Tregoning at the opening meeting of Sustainable DC at the Convention Center, be visionary and think equity!

 

     On another front, one of our present awkward issues is the advent of cheap natural gas, which may be encouraging the transition from coal for electricity generation, but is discouraging the next step to carbon-free sources for electricity, transport, and heating.  This suggests a great university project:  converting the abundant natural gas into hydrogen and storing the carbon.  A hydrogen energy economy is clearly a great final goal.

I am not convinced that is a desirable goal, rather the alternative is going completely wind/solar producing electricity that can also be used to generate C-neutral hydrocarbon fuels from carbon dioxide and water for transportation especially air travel. 

[Matthew Slavin]

Folks,

I'm confident that if you knew me well, you'd find me a very aspirational person. And I agree that in our plan goals, we need to aim high. But I also think we need to measure our goals not just in terms of what is aspirationally desirable but by what is realistically feasible in terms of not only optimal technological assumptions but in terms of cost and economics, politics and wider public acceptance.

It's been estimated that a 100 x 100 square mile section of the Nevada desert if laminated with solar could supply all of the nation's electricity needs. Maybe so, maybe not, but we're not there yet and have a long way to go (transmission, storage, etc). I also read that someone on the green economy group recommended having the District pull all its deposits out of commercial banks and create a public bank presided over by community members. While it is certainly possible to do this, it will never happen (and if it did, the District's credit rating would sink to lower than fff.) My concern is that if our goals come across as not realistically feasible, it will create overwhelming skepticism among the larger District community and as a result, the value of all the good work we have all invested in Sustainable DC will be diminished – babys thrown out with the bathwater

On energy, we have a number of goals which at this point seem to me to be aggressive but in some cases, unrealistically so. Also, a number of our goals at this point are disjointed – we need to reconcile how the various renewable and energy efficiency goals would add up in an integrated fuel mix portfolio, for example. I'd like to suggest that we focus some time on this.

Best,

Matt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable DC Green Economy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sustainable-dc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable-dc-green...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable-dc-green-economy?hl=en.

[Updike, William (DDOE)]

For those who really want to get into the weeds on solar panel efficiencies, here’s the Wiki link about the Shockley-Queisser Limit:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

 

The limit is a maximum of 33.7% efficiency for single p-n junction crystalline cells.  There is a lot of development in multi-junction and other technologies these days, and we could see greater efficiencies in those.  Remember though, that these are cell efficiencies and not module efficiencies (those cap out at less than 20% these days).   And then add some efficiency losses for the whole system.    The challenge that we have in the District is a square footage one.   If we are going to shoot for 60-100% renewables by 2050, some of that capacity may/will likely have to come from outside of the District boundaries.  All of this (including the energy efficiency goals we have) will of course take an Apollo Project type effort, and as Gene said, the price of natural gas and the opening up of shale deposits certainly doesn’t help.

 

Bill Updike

Program Analyst

Government of the District of Columbia

Department of the Environment

1200 First Street, NE 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 535-1337 - Direct

green.dc.gov

 

 

     - Gene

 

 

Join Mayor Gray’s One City • One Hire - 10,000 Jobs Campaign
“Putting District Residents Back to Work – One Hire at a Time”
Learn more at http://onecityonehire.org

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable DC Energy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sustainabl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable-dc-e...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable-dc-energy?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable DC Climate" group.
To post to this group, send email to sustainable...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable-dc-cl...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable-dc-climate?hl=en.

[David Schwartzman]

Matthew,

The bottom line of your comments is that we should be "realistic" and not aim for goals that will "never happen" such as a Public Bank or by inference 100% renewable by 2050. Well North Dakota established a Public Bank many years ago and their economy has benefited a great deal from that innovation, including being virtually exempt from foreclosure crisis that we are still in. If you don't organize for innovative even radical solutions you will still get much of the same or worse and majority of DC residents who still struggle economically will suffer even more (DC has the highest income inequality in the nation compared to 50 states and virtually all cities, including Baltimore with very similar demographics). I suggest you find out more about what a DC Public (Partnership) Bank is about before making dire predictions about credit ratings plunging. See separate forward with additional information. 

As far as the 100% renewable by 2050 goal, there is no plausible reason I see that as unattainable, actually I think we could get there even faster.  

[David Schwartzman]

I agree that some of the energy supply must come out of the District in a 100% renewable by 2050 scenario, that is why I included DC getting on a regional grid powered by off shore wind, rather than mountain-top removal coal used by PEPCO now!

[Steve Seuser]

I'm in favor of realism for our goals as well, but I question whether it's realistic to assume that technology will remain the same from now until 2050.  This seems to be an underlying assumption in the discussion thus far about our big picture energy goals.  I support adopting big picture goals that describe where we want to be in 2050, and that we explore existing and new technologies and financing every step of the way to achieve our ambitious goals.  The 65% renewable energy goal doesn't seem a stretch at all, based on articles I've read from multiple sources.  I also support a goal of 100% renewable energy by 2050.

The lack of adequate carbon goals is also a problem to me.  I don't support substituting natural gas to reduce coal consumption, except as a short- to medium-term solution.  Contrary to popular mythology, there is no unlimited supply of natural gas, and burning it adds significant carbon to the atmosphere.  I won't even start a discussion about the potential problems with fracking here.

Establishing underwhelming goals in our group will not take us where we need to be for multiple reasons -- climate change, local economic development, job creation, diversification of ownership of energy systems, and inclusion of all residents of the city.  These are the powerful challenges facing the world, the U.S., D.C., and this group.  We need to step up and plan for the future.

Steve Seuser

[Matthew Slavin]

I am in favor of establishing a Green Bank to finance sustainability in the District and in fact involved in some discussions toward this end. But a Green Bank is far different from the sort of public Bank concept described in the email you circulated. Due to the conflicting scheduling of the various groups, I've not been able to attend all teh Green Economy meetings but hope a Green Bank is a goal or action item.

Could be wrong but if I recall, ND established its state bank during the Depression when private banks failed and there was no alternative. And the bank is not run by the grassroots but by professional bankers.

I think efforts would be better focused upon creating a Green Bank along the lines of Connecticut's Green Bank than a people's bank as was described.

Best,

Matt

[Matthew Slavin]

Well, as you know, we are working on legislation that would phase out high carbon coal fired generation as a source supplying electricity to DC. This approach does indeed recognize that gas would be needed as a bridge until renewable farming is capable of meeting the District's electricity demand in practice and not just in theory.  Perhaps we can discuss this further at tonight's energy group meeting.

[Brett Wiley]

Hi All,

For energy efficiency, our goals are aggressive and I feel like they
fall in line with the American Council for an Energy Efficiency
Economy's report "The Long-Term Energy Efficiency Potential: What the
Evidence Suggests". They cite a 40-60% reduction in total energy
consumption by 2050 based on today's level using only existing
technology. Pragmatic and progressive seems entirely possible using
existing knowledge of the energy efficiency market and potential in
DC.

http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e121

I'm looking forward to the meeting tonight.

in community,
Brett Wiley | Lead Organizer, Strong Homes Program

Groundswell | 1850 M Street NW Suite 1150 Washington, D.C. 20036 l
www.groundswell.org | 202.630.5586 | Twitter: @grndswell

*The DC Project changed its name to Groundswell. To find new resources
and discover opportunities to take action, visit our new
site:www.groundswell.org.

On Feb 21, 4:50 pm, "Updike, William (DDOE)" <william.upd...@dc.gov>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> It would be really helpful if prior to our next meeting on Thursday (6:00-8:00pm, Room 1117 in One Judiciary Square), the group could think about how to align all of our target goals.   For example, the Institute for Local Self Reliance did a study (see attached) that said the District could offset a total 19% of energy consumption (2007 demand numbers) using rooftop solar (generation inside the city limits), and another 13% using CHP (we don't have wind capacity and the study didn't include tidal/river generation, waste-to-energy, biomass, etc.).   But we have voted on these goals:
>
> 35% renewable by 2025
> 65% renewable by 2050
> and
> 5% energy reductions by 2015
> 25% energy reductions by 2025
> 60% energy reductions by 2035
>
> There is a green roof study of DC that stated that we have about 75 million square feet of potential green roof space in the District (assuming 80% of total area of roofs greater than 10,000 square feet).  If we translated that into solar, it would add up to around 215-380 MW of capacity (depending on the panel efficiencies and other things).  Now, 80% coverage is overly generous of course given that some plants can grow in shade and solar doesn't.   But, given that the green roof study was only for buildings greater than 10,000 square feet, which leaves out most single family homes in the District, perhaps the number is OK to use for now.  215-380MW would offset a small percentage of current total consumption.   According to the ILSR study, the District would need 32.3% of its total land area in order to be totally self-reliant, which of course is not likely.
>
> The SEU is charged with reducing energy consumption in the District by 1% per year, and our energy efficiency targets are more than twice that over time and nearly triple that by 2035.  So we need to figure out how to augment what the SEU is doing to achieve our targets.  This also does not factor in growth in energy demand due to new development and the increase in the number of residents in DC.
>

> So thinking on how we get there would also be very useful as we further refine our goals and actions.  Just some food for thought-see you all at our next meeting!

>
> Bill Updike
> Program Analyst
> Government of the District of Columbia
> Department of the Environment
> 1200 First Street, NE 5th Floor
> Washington, DC 20002
> (202) 535-1337 - Direct
> green.dc.gov
>

> [cid:image002....@01CCF0B8.F90D5130]
>
> Join Mayor Gray's One City * One Hire - 10,000 Jobs Campaign
> "Putting District Residents Back to Work - One Hire at a Time"
> Learn more athttp://onecityonehire.org
>
>  image002.jpg
> 5KViewDownload
>
>  Institute for Local Self-Reliance Renewables Study.pdf
> 3864KViewDownload

[Matthew Slavin]

Agreed – efficiency is the most cost-effective path forward in reducing energy consumption and producing consumer savings although the big issue over the past decades has not been technical capacity but market acceptance and penetration. We will be making a presentation at tonight's energy group on a legislative initiative aimed at bolstering attainment of aggressive energy efficiency goals for the District.

[larry martin]

I'm loving this exchange, very instructive!  Lets be sure that we don't use "cost-effective" as a prioritizing lens to discuss efficiency and conservation vs renewables.  While that might be a useful way of thinking about a household's budget for "energy" if they have a fixed budget (and who doesn't) - it is wrong-headed to use this criterion for larger social scale investments.  Here is why:  They are both essential, but they contribute in different ways and on different time horizons.  

Congress has made a similar methodological mistake on occasion when discussing human health and the environment.  Public health gets 1st place in line, the environment sometimes dropped much lower.  But you can't protect public health in the long term (or it becomes MUCH more expensive) if you allow the environment to degrade.  Efficiency is to public health as renewables is to the environment.  Efficiency and conservation gives us immediate bang for bucks, but to take this away from advancing renewables is short sighted.  We have to be careful NEVER to put efficiency up against renewables in a national or even DC based context.  Its like debating what is more important, public health or the environment.  They are joined at the hip and we always need to highlight that.  

Larry Martin

[Matthew Slavin]

Agreed!

[Steve Seuser]

I'm not sure I agree the ACEEE has the final word on this issue of renewable energy potential, given their funding base of corporations in the energy industry, many of them eager to protect their existing business interests. There are many other independent sources of information that project much quicker adoption of renewable energy sources. Affordable fInancing for both renewable energy and energy efficiency in DC could dramatically speed the adoption of both types of technologies.

Other information sources for renewable energy include:

Rocky Mountain Institute: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/ReinventingFire
RAND Corporation: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-13-05.asp
Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

The U.S. military plans to generate 50% renewable energy by 2025.
Germany has blown past its aggressive renewable energy goals of 2020. The overall Eurozone goal was 20% renewables by 2020, a goal Germany reached for itself in 2011.

Steve Seuser

[Judy Kosovich]

Hi, I will probably miss the meeting tonight.

 

The meeting at the Sierra Club last night included a presentation on the merits of a carbon tax vs. other options on the table.  I left convinced that a carbon tax is the way to go.  (Google "carbon tax institute.")   Not only would it reduce carbon emissions through higher prices of goods with high embedded emissions, it would provide money for the budget and can be the basis for reducing other taxes.  It does not run the risk of lowering energy prices and increasing consumption.  It does not provide windfall profits to those who currently emit most of the carbon.  It does not require complex regulations to be developed.  It can have a lead time of a couple years so that investment is stimulated and the economy is not burdened, followed by a gentle racheting up of the tax.  It even has a method for putting imports on a level playing field with goods produced here, thus encouraging other countries to institute a carbon tax as well. 

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:10 AM, David Schwartzman <dschwa...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable DC Green Economy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sustainable-dc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable-dc-green...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable-dc-green-economy?hl=en.

[Eugene Imhoff]

Judy -

     A carbon tax would be great, if only to see how Congress would react.

     One qualm I've heard is the equity issue.  Typically there is refund of some of the tax for low income homeowners.  If this refund is 100% then there is no motivation for energy efficiency.  Any refund less than 100% reduces the funds available for energy efficiency  Thus any carbon tax needs to tie these taxpayers to public funds for EE - presumably from the carbon tax revenues.

     Has anyone in the transportation subgroup proposed a sliding scale for automobile registrations, depending on EPA MPG or equivalent?

          - Gene

(62 MPG over the last 11 yrs - when I'm not riding Metro)

[David Schwartzman]

That is excellent. Hope the phaseout is very quick for the sake of the climate and its biodiversity including us.

[David Schwartzman]

Here is another fact sheet about a DC Public (Partnership) Bank which should help to clear up your misinterpretations on this issue, along with the attachments sent earlier today.

The North Dakota Public Bank was founded in 1919, not during the Depression, as a result of an upsurge in the populist farmers' movement. Given the huge income gap in DC, the continuing heavy weight of big corporate money on our political process, the continuing raid on our tax revenue by unjustified corporate tax abatements and subsidies,  our regressive local tax structure, severe underfunding of low income programs and  47% poverty rate of Black children living in the District, I suggest we need to use our tax revenue more wisely than putting into deposit in Wall Street banks such as Wells Fargo (which holds our property taxes) (documentation is available for all these assertions). Once established, The DC Public (Partnership) Bank would collaborate with local banks including a Green Bank if this is necessary, but investing in green jobs and the green economy should be a priority for a DC Public Bank.

[Judy Kosovich]

I agree wholeheartedly with Steve's points. 

 

I also think our process does not provide enough cross-fertilization.  We need synergy to achieve sustainability.  Everything has connections to many things.  I have been bringing rubble to a farm to fill in ditches and bringing compost to the city for gardens.  The farm is very happy to have the rubble and I would be going to this farm anyway so there is little extra environmental cost.  We need to find ways to make these kind of matches.  People could bring compost to farmers markets.  If match.com etc. can handle the complexity of people, the technology exists to handle their stuff. 

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Steve Seuser <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Judy Kosovich]

Gene, points well taken.  Perhaps the Carbon Tax Institute has the answers.  They seem to have thought things through pretty carefully.  Perhaps Larry Martin or someone else who has contact info could forward your email.

[David Schwartzman]

I agree too, a carbon tax if implemented must be equitable and not penalize low income folk who because of the lack of affordable public transport must drive a car. Various approaches have been proposed including the same $ dividend distributed to everyone. Btw here is a link to Gus Speth's splendid manifesto:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6681

[Mike Healy]

Hey folks, I appreciate the discussion going on here and although I haven't been able to participate directly I have been following.  For those that don't know me, I have headed up numerous lobbying efforts on behalf the local Solar Energy Industries Association (and national SEIA across various states), as well as my company, Skyline Innovations, and have worked closely with council for years primarily on solar issues, but also the DC SEU, tax issues, etc and have also worked closely with the PSC.  I'm happy to help when the time comes for reality checks of what may or may not be possible through the legislative or regulatory process.  I know there are plenty of others with expertise in this regard, but I wanted to through that out to the group so I can be helpful when needed.  

Cheers,

Mike

___________________________

Mike Healy

Skyline Innovations

mhe...@skylineinnovations.com 

202.306.7900

On Feb 23, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Matthew Slavin wrote:

[Corey Ramsden]

Thank you to everyone who participated in this email thread. I’ve enjoyed reading it. Thanks as well to those who came out Thursday night to help winnow the goals and actions down and make them more specific!

 

Pardon the slight re-wind on the threads flying about earlier this week but I wanted to mention a goal that I and several others suggested at earlier meetings that didn’t make it to the list. I believe it is already represented in spirit by many of the goals that did make the list but because our ultimate goal is sustainable energy, I’m pitching it again here:

 

By 2050, all sectors of the District will consume no more energy than can be produced from local and regional renewable energy sources.

 

It’s a rather simplistic statement to be sure but I think it’s important for us to implicitly recognize in our goals that sustainable energy means equalizing our demand with renewable supply. I realize there are other definitions of sustainable energy out there but that’s the one I feel meets the spirit of this process the best.

 

If we don’t think we can reach this equalized (sustainable) goal by 2050 then another alternative would be something like this:

 

By 2050, the District will produce 50% of all energy consumed from local and regional renewable energy sources.

 

What do you think? Is there room for a goal like this on our list?

 

Corey Ramsden

[David Schwartzman]

I do like making explicit "local and regional renewable energy sources" but given the discussion including specific numbers already on this thread I still strongly urge that the goal should be 100% renewable consumed in the District by 2050. To even mention 50% is an admission of dismal failure! We should not aim for failure. Please 2050 is 38 years from now. If 50% by 2050 is realized and typical of what will be achieved then climate catastrophe is already virtually inevitable.