News

Palo Alto's climate change goals may be out of reach

As city builds road map for meeting '80x30' target, officials question whether current efforts will be enough

Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf, and Chevy Volt automobiles charge at the electric vehicle charging stations installed at the Foothill Research Center office complex in Palo Alto. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

Despite making some recent gains on their climate change goals, Palo Alto officials are now confronting a harsh reality: their aim of reducing emissions by 80% by 2030 may hinge on technologies that don't yet exist.

The City Council received this message during its annual discussion of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, a strategic document that is guiding the city's effort to curb emissions. Having adopted climate change as one of its goals for the year, the council is now preparing a detailed action plan aimed at realizing the "80x30 goal" that it had adopted in 2016 and which uses 1990 as a baseline.

Some progress has already been made. The city's reduction currently stands about 50.6% below 1990 levels, according to sustainability coordinator Christine Luong. The biggest factor to date has been the city's conversion to carbon-free electricity, a policy that accounts for about 47% of the reduction. Another 24% can be attributed to declines in transportation emissions, a function of both the city's high rate of electric vehicles and a sharp decline in commuting in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The city also saw a 15% reduction in natural gas consumption, primarily in the commercial and industrial sectors, and a 12% drop in solid waste emissions, a function of the city shutting down its sludge-burning incinerators in 2019.

Luong said that without the pandemic, the city's emissions cuts would be around 42% lower than in 1990.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Though the city continues to see a yawning gap between its track record and its aspirations, Luong suggested that the 2016 goal remains possible. Renewable energy has become much more affordable since 2010, with the cost of solar panels and lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles plunging by 85% and the cost of wind energy dropping by more than a half, she said. Over the next year, the city plans to capitalize on this trend by launching new programs aimed at encouraging residents to switch from gas appliances to ones powered by clean electricity.

Ramiro Martinez secures a solar panel installed on the roof of a house in Hillsborough on May 18, 2021. Photo by Daniela Beltran B.

"We know how to shift from fossil fuel for electricity and transportation, which are two of the largest sources of emissions caused by human activity," Luong said. "We also know how to use less energy.

"What we don't know is how to do some of the hardest things, but there's plenty of actions we can take immediately while we develop solutions for some of the more difficult problems."

To meet its goals, the city will need to reduce its emissions from the 2020 level of 387,287 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to about 156,000 metric tons. The biggest contributors to emissions are transportation, which accounts for about 62% of the emissions, and natural gas, which accounts for another 35%.

But even if the council succeeds in converting residents to electric appliances and accelerating their switch to electric vehicles, Palo Alto would still fall about 10% shy of the 80x30 goal, according to Public Works Director Brad Eggleston.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

"The 70% reduction is where we end up if we successfully implement everything we're talking about now," Eggleston said. "We still need to look at some additional reductions beyond that that may come from other technologies."

Eggleston noted, however, that the 80x30 goal remains possible and that the city is preparing a work plan with a road map to getting there. The council last year established a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Committee that is working with community stakeholders to explore new technologies and create strategies for engaging residents and financing the new programs.

Mayor Pat Burt, who sits on the committee, said one promising method for getting residents to switch to electric appliances is "on-bill financing," a mechanism in which the city pays for the cost difference between a new gas appliance and an electric one. Residents would then pay off that subsidy on their utility bills. The local advocacy group Carbon Free Palo Alto has long championed this method as a way to accelerate the city's electrification effort.

"If you have to replace a hot water heater, you pay for the normal cost of a gas water heater from your pocket, the rest gets financed on the water bill," Burt said. "It doesn't cost you anymore because the savings on hot water heaters exceed the amount of payment that you'd have to make per month for a heat pump hot-water heater."

Palo Alto is also exploring ways to improve its infamously lengthy permitting process for solar projects. Luong said that the city launched last week a pilot program with SolarAPP+, a system that allows residents who want to install solar panels on their roofs to get swift approval through a plan-review software. Five companies are participating in the pilot project and the city is expecting to add between four and six solar projects very soon, she said.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

The city is also exploring ways to upgrade its aged electric grid, much of which was built about 50 years ago and cannot support a massive switch to electrification. The city's Utilities Advisory Commission will be working with the Utilities Department staff over the coming months to create a plan for the necessary upgrades.

Council member Alison Cormack, who sits on the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Committee, said that the effort to upgrade the transformer system so that it can support the planned electrification projects will be "a really heavy lift" for the city.

"I think we had thought (electrification) was a lot about convincing people to make changes, but we're also as a city going to have to make changes in our utility," Cormack said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Palo Alto's climate change goals may be out of reach

As city builds road map for meeting '80x30' target, officials question whether current efforts will be enough

Despite making some recent gains on their climate change goals, Palo Alto officials are now confronting a harsh reality: their aim of reducing emissions by 80% by 2030 may hinge on technologies that don't yet exist.

The City Council received this message during its annual discussion of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, a strategic document that is guiding the city's effort to curb emissions. Having adopted climate change as one of its goals for the year, the council is now preparing a detailed action plan aimed at realizing the "80x30 goal" that it had adopted in 2016 and which uses 1990 as a baseline.

Some progress has already been made. The city's reduction currently stands about 50.6% below 1990 levels, according to sustainability coordinator Christine Luong. The biggest factor to date has been the city's conversion to carbon-free electricity, a policy that accounts for about 47% of the reduction. Another 24% can be attributed to declines in transportation emissions, a function of both the city's high rate of electric vehicles and a sharp decline in commuting in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The city also saw a 15% reduction in natural gas consumption, primarily in the commercial and industrial sectors, and a 12% drop in solid waste emissions, a function of the city shutting down its sludge-burning incinerators in 2019.

Luong said that without the pandemic, the city's emissions cuts would be around 42% lower than in 1990.

Though the city continues to see a yawning gap between its track record and its aspirations, Luong suggested that the 2016 goal remains possible. Renewable energy has become much more affordable since 2010, with the cost of solar panels and lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles plunging by 85% and the cost of wind energy dropping by more than a half, she said. Over the next year, the city plans to capitalize on this trend by launching new programs aimed at encouraging residents to switch from gas appliances to ones powered by clean electricity.

"We know how to shift from fossil fuel for electricity and transportation, which are two of the largest sources of emissions caused by human activity," Luong said. "We also know how to use less energy.

"What we don't know is how to do some of the hardest things, but there's plenty of actions we can take immediately while we develop solutions for some of the more difficult problems."

To meet its goals, the city will need to reduce its emissions from the 2020 level of 387,287 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to about 156,000 metric tons. The biggest contributors to emissions are transportation, which accounts for about 62% of the emissions, and natural gas, which accounts for another 35%.

But even if the council succeeds in converting residents to electric appliances and accelerating their switch to electric vehicles, Palo Alto would still fall about 10% shy of the 80x30 goal, according to Public Works Director Brad Eggleston.

"The 70% reduction is where we end up if we successfully implement everything we're talking about now," Eggleston said. "We still need to look at some additional reductions beyond that that may come from other technologies."

Eggleston noted, however, that the 80x30 goal remains possible and that the city is preparing a work plan with a road map to getting there. The council last year established a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Committee that is working with community stakeholders to explore new technologies and create strategies for engaging residents and financing the new programs.

Mayor Pat Burt, who sits on the committee, said one promising method for getting residents to switch to electric appliances is "on-bill financing," a mechanism in which the city pays for the cost difference between a new gas appliance and an electric one. Residents would then pay off that subsidy on their utility bills. The local advocacy group Carbon Free Palo Alto has long championed this method as a way to accelerate the city's electrification effort.

"If you have to replace a hot water heater, you pay for the normal cost of a gas water heater from your pocket, the rest gets financed on the water bill," Burt said. "It doesn't cost you anymore because the savings on hot water heaters exceed the amount of payment that you'd have to make per month for a heat pump hot-water heater."

Palo Alto is also exploring ways to improve its infamously lengthy permitting process for solar projects. Luong said that the city launched last week a pilot program with SolarAPP+, a system that allows residents who want to install solar panels on their roofs to get swift approval through a plan-review software. Five companies are participating in the pilot project and the city is expecting to add between four and six solar projects very soon, she said.

The city is also exploring ways to upgrade its aged electric grid, much of which was built about 50 years ago and cannot support a massive switch to electrification. The city's Utilities Advisory Commission will be working with the Utilities Department staff over the coming months to create a plan for the necessary upgrades.

Council member Alison Cormack, who sits on the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Committee, said that the effort to upgrade the transformer system so that it can support the planned electrification projects will be "a really heavy lift" for the city.

"I think we had thought (electrification) was a lot about convincing people to make changes, but we're also as a city going to have to make changes in our utility," Cormack said.

Comments

Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 12, 2022 at 7:55 am
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 7:55 am

Another reason Palo Alto might not make its goal: exceptions for projects or parts of projects that contribute greatly to GHG. In February 2019, City Council voted to not build the downtown garage on Hamilton. Liz Kniss cited Council’s then recent adoption of climate change and the environmental impact of building a facility that encourages driving. As she said, times have changed and “the climate and our commitment now to climate change, to sustainability, is very real.” So the promised garage was voted down. Will the City stand by its goals and tell Castilleja NO to building a garage?


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2022 at 8:20 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 8:20 am

Getting public shuttles returned should really help, particularly for getting students to school. Not talking about school buses, but shuttles that serve the schools for students, teachers and others. Get some park and ride parking lots near highway off ramps and a system of shuttles that work efficiently.

Getting electrical service underground so that wind, rain, geese, balloons, etc. do not cause outages and make for expensive overtime for line workers, etc.

Improve walkability by opening the creek paths to bikes and pedestrians.

Improve parking so that less vehicles are circling looking for somewhere to park.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 12, 2022 at 10:06 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 10:06 am

Both of you above make excellent points re shuttles. I've never understood why Casti students need a garage when the Casti teachers have to shuttle in from the Baylands.


d page
Registered user
Midtown
on Apr 12, 2022 at 10:54 am
d page, Midtown
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 10:54 am

I believe a possible summary would say something like following: Our City government -

May continue to talk about reaching 2030 goals (without using words such as “pollution”)
May implement “on-bill financing” (if so, thank you!)

Will continue to claim we get “carbon-free” electricity from the regional grid (when the mix of sources for P.A. electricity is, mostly, the same as the rest of the state)
Will boast about residents purchasing electric cars (when city staff/officials have had almost nothing to do with this)
Will “encourage” residents to switch off of methane gas (but not mention extreme weather deaths)
Will ignore the death rates of third world people due to OUR pollution
Will explore how it may upgrade the local grid/transformer system

Won't educate residents (i.e., using utility bill inserts) about pollution footprints (which might show the biggest sources of P.A. resident’s CO2e production comes from purchasing cattle/cow products and/or airplane tickets)
Won't put solar panels over every parking lot (like at Paly) and every government building rooftop (one of the Cal Ave parking garages has this above the top floor; thank you!)
Won't educate residents about the “moral imperative” written about in the Palo Alto Green Ribbon Task Force report of 2005
Won't implement the recommendations of the Green Ribbon Task Force
Won't ban gas stations within city limits...

It’s easy to be a critic, and there are many people involved who're doing their very best in a difficult situation.

But let’s face it - the political will to do the “heavy lifting” won’t come about by tweaking the usual programs. Residents don’t want to make financial sacrifices, nor significant life-style changes, unless given extraordinary reasons to do so. Without a thoughtful educational/awareness campaign (connecting our pollution to traumatic consequences) Palo Alto’s “sustainability effort” will continue to merely limp along.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 12, 2022 at 11:05 am
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 11:05 am

When and until the rest of the world (particularly China and India) gets on board with making change, nothing the City of Palo Alto does will make a difference. Nothing. Doesn't mean the effort needs to stop but it's futile at the very least.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 12, 2022 at 11:46 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 11:46 am

Cities state goals to show they are "onboard" with the current administration. That is a nod to show support. Reality is this is a very small city that has no major energy producing industry. Our industry is people sitting at computers. WE are further exacerbated by our major business entities are sitting at SRP - that is SU land.
Any big improvements on their land will have to be financed by them. NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

People sitting at computers make a lot of political noise but now they are sitting at home doing it. Our major concern now is WATER - lack of. That is a climate issue we have no control over at this city level.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:39 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:39 pm

Last night's meeting was maddening. According to City Staff's presentation Web Link vehicles on the road are the largest contributor to emissions, as well as the factor whose marginal share of emissions is growing (in 1990, vehicles contributed less than half, and now contribute almost 2/3rds).

Yet, CC barely mentioned this. Rather, they bragged of our high percentage of electric cars -- even though many believe that the harm of manufacturing a new electric car may not outweigh the benefits once manufactured for several years. Frustrating.

PACC's solution: as usual, mostly "committees." Where is the sense of urgency?

Palo Alto CC should know that reducing cars on the road is both possible & good for everyone! Here are two ways that could make an impact from day one:

1. As others have mentioned, we had ELECTRIC SHUTTLES before PACC defunded them, and we should bring them back immediately, and expand the program. If commuters and residents had free and convenient electric shuttles to ride from homes, workplaces, train stations, and ideally from parking lots near highway exits, we could dramatically reduce car usage in our town, because free shuttles save money for drivers and eliminate the need to find parking! A robust shuttle program also could reduce noise, danger to children/seniors, and parking in residential neighborhoods. A win for everyone. (And yes, Castilleja could use them too; shame on them for demanding a concrete garage.)

2. Protected, safe bike lanes and pedestrian bridges - to make walking & biking safe & convenient for all. PACC keeps defunding and delaying essential bike infrastructure projects, even as children are killed on their bicycles by traffic on roads. One death of a child is too many. We must prioritize safe bike infrastructure!

Car traffic can & must be reduced, for our children, city, & planet.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:49 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:49 pm

Let's recall that Palo Alto defunded the shuttles because they didn't coordinate with VTA and the county which then decided to cut PA's bus / shuttle service to avoid duplication! AND we're still paying the increased transit tax!

Re cutting vehicle emissions, I'm sure not a single vehicle owned by the 2,000,000 more people the Bay Area is due to accommodate will add to the problems, not will the gridlocked and backed up traffic. Nor will the vehicles unable to park near public transit stations since their parking lots are slated for more housing. Now will the fact that we'll all have to drive more do to our errands since the shopping centers are being converted to more housing.

But please, let's ignore these pesky li8ttle facts as well as the new state auditor report showing how bogus and unfair the new housing targets are.

Just keep on virtue signalling.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:50 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:50 pm

Speaking of which, I have a question for fellow fans of environmental sustainability. In the City Staff's presentation here:

Web Link

5.5% of emissions are said to be caused by "other transportation" -- specifically, transportation that is not "vehicles on the road." I missed if they explained this: is that 5.5% attributable to private airplanes? If so, that probably is something that is worthy of examination, because it was not a factor in the past (prior to 2019, at least according to the incomplete charts provided), so it might be new and increasing.

I was always taught in economics and statistics to focus on the factors that are growing the most quickly in order to prevent small issues from growing into large problems. Was there any attention to this particular segment? Thanks in advance for insight on this.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:57 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 1:57 pm

Online name, I encourage you to visit cities that have invested in robust local shuttles and safe bike lanes and examine the quality of life. Europe has many of these cities -- I recommend Berlin, my favorite! -- but there are some examples much closer by. Castro Street in Mountain View, for example. And San Francisco's Market Street near the clocktower. It is beautiful, fun, safe, and car-free! This is no pipe dream. We are just behind the times.

I also wonder about the term "virtue signaling." It is used a lot, sometimes to criticize advocates of positive change. By virtue signaling, are you saying that people propose ideas, including those that have been proven to work elsewhere, in order to look good, rather than in order to make those positive changes? That seems a lot to assume of others. I prefer to think that most people want to do the right thing; they sometimes just don't know how, or lack the courage to speak out against a vocal majority. I'm just wondering what you and others mean by that. It sounds like a criticism, and possibly an unfair one, but I don't claim to understand it.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 12, 2022 at 2:16 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 2:16 pm

When I say "virtue signalling," I'm referring to our highly paid city staff that preaches a good game but fails to do its homework like coordinate the shuttles with the VTA and county. Then they spend a fortune telling US to get out of our cars but do nothing about the commuters who overrun us 4:1.

We dine regularly on Castro St. in Mountain View and have never seen a shuttle; we have seen reserved parking / drop off spots for Uber / Lyft. Where do the shuttles start and stop? Do they run on weekends and evenings?

Yes, European cities and Asian cities, too, are way ahead of the us in public transit but then again they're cities, not suburbs.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 12, 2022 at 3:18 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 3:18 pm

Online name - thank you for that explanation - and also for recognizing that I asked the question in good faith. :) I agree with your assessment.

As to Mountain View shuttles, not perfect, but any shuttle system is better than our non-existent shuttle system. Here is the Mountain View shuttle schedule:

Web Link

Finally, are we a city or a suburb? I grew up in an honest-to-goodness suburb. There were ZERO large companies located there, other than retail stores such as Gimbels (z''l) and Kohl's. I generally think of a suburb as a place where people live but other than teachers and other city employees, as well as folks who work at the restaurants and stores, where they do not work.

Palo Alto, on the other hand, is unfortunately more a place where people work than where people live.

Specifically, approximately 68,500 people live here Web Link but almost 100,000 people work here.
Web Link

In my perspective, that makes Palo Alto a city, even though I believe I speak for many when I say I wish it were not. If we replaced commercial buildings with housing, we could change that balance and improve our quality of life for all. As you mention, we are overrun by commuters, few of whom can afford to live here.

Yet, the COPA continues to welcome new office construction! E.g. 123 Sherman, a proposed office complex big enough to hold 731 employees (!) surrounded on 3 sides by lovely residential condominiums. Web Link PA's planning dept has been shepherding in this new job-creator, even though large employers still don't pay business tax, and the proposed defective tax won't change that. It will just overrun a residential area with more commuter traffic.

This is what our leadership keeps doing. It's wrong.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 12, 2022 at 3:30 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 3:30 pm

One last thing - you will see that the Mountain View Shuttle is "sponsored" by Google because they are the biggest contributor to it, as well as by far the biggest payor of the Mountain View business tax, which taxes the largest employers at much higher rates than small businesses. (Palo Alto's proposed business tax will cause much harm to small businesses, while taxing Tesla, Palantir, VC firms and other huge employers and the most profitable businesses at a much lower tax rate!)

Mountain View is a great example of showing that a well-crafted businesses tax (like theirs, and not like our broken proposed tax) benefits both large employers and the community at large. Although Google is the single biggest financial contributor to the public shuttle, that shuttle is open to everyone, whether they work at Google or not. It helps Google to make it easier for their employees to be able to get to work. This is why Google also supports the use of the taxes they pay for affordable housing. It benefits Google when its employees are able to live closer to work!

Unsurprisingly, when the "Google Tax" was put on the ballot, Google did not oppose it! For them, a few million dollars in taxes barely registers a blip on their bottom line - plus I'm pretty sure it's deductible. Our large companies will think the same.

For these reasons and so many others, a robust, free, and convenient system of local transit benefits everyone, in addition to the planet. Here again is the MV Shuttle Schedule with the Google logo on the bottom.

Route Map:
Web Link

Schedule:
Web Link


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 12, 2022 at 4:21 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 4:21 pm

City: can you give an ETA for the return of the Embarcadero Shuttle? Or advise that it will not be reactivated? It was helpful for avoiding driving to work and I often saw several Castilleja students using it to go “the last mile” from the train station to school.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 12, 2022 at 4:33 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 4:33 pm

1) Can I -- a non-Googler -- ride the shuttle to and from Mountain View and Palo Alto? Google also runs buses north past SF and south past SJ. They used to go north into Marin and maybe they still do. Can we ride those? You do recall the reaction in SF to the Google buses, don't you?

1A) Good for Google not opposing the business tax. Maybe they can suggest the same to the PA Chamber of Commerce which continues to oppose the business tax while shifting the costs from businesses to the residents.

Maybe ask PA small businesses how they feel about the Chamber of Commerce and whether it serves their needs. Where was the Chamber of Commerce when the Town & Country landlord wanted to kick out more of the small retailers to convert the shopping center to "medical/retail" just as the pandemic was ending? Several of us RESIDENTS helped Lydia Kou interview the retailers and compile evidence of how the landlord kept trying to oust them while the city staff and pro-development CC members went right along with it. Fortunately the evidence was overwhelming that staff couldn't even define the "medical/retail" it was pushing!

2) If the business tax is done fairly and small resident-serving businesses are exempt, it would be fine. But given the way PA works, they're trying to tax RESIDENTS who use PA Utilities -- instead of businesses. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, "Residents are businesses, my friend" in this the latest money grab.

If you're not furious that PA hired a full-time SENIOR CPAU staffer -- $250K?? -- to lobby us full-time to tax residential utility customers by sanctifying their illegal practice of overcharging us $20,000,000 each and every year, I am.

I have no faith in the city serving residents or playing fair! Do you? You're usually a very eloquent critic of PA government and waste. This should be right up your alley.


Larry
Registered user
Downtown North
on Apr 12, 2022 at 5:54 pm
Larry, Downtown North
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 5:54 pm

Back to 80x30: The City would argue that 80x30's purpose is not to single-handedly reduce global warming, but to demonstrate how together with other communities we could reduce emissions at significant scale. But that logic is only valid if the actions the City undertakes can actually be applied to other communities. What good is providing an example that others can't follow?

By setting its arbitrary 80x30 goal, the City has converted the global problem of planetary warming into a local problem of reducing just Palo Alto's emissions. For that, the City is considering lots of solutions, both ones that can be applied elsewhere at scale, and ones that cannot. Solutions that can't scale are purely symbolic; they waste precious resources and time, distract us from scalable solutions, and ultimately do little to reduce warming. IMO, compulsory residential electric retrofit and mass EV adoption are not scalable: only wealthy, entitled communities like ours can afford it.

HOWEVER, Palo Alto is unlike most cities because we own our own utilities. This makes us a perfect laboratory for innovation - innovation in ways that are virtually impossible elsewhere. I would much rather see CPAU be able to keep its Utilities Transfer money and “go big” investing in next-level, community-scale green solutions. Think micro-grids with neighborhood-scale storage, powered by local rooftop solar, etc, etc. Sure the storage has been slow in coming, but there is plenty of work to be done in the meantime: policy and financial work, PV installation work for when the storage becomes available, etc. Our innovation could become a blueprint for other communities to invest in their own utilities, ultimately going beyond what investor-owned utilities are willing to do. It may also mean that we might not need to completely rebuild our local grid, providing the micro-grids can supply the peak loads.

Then the City can go fund itself like other cities without a utilities enterprise do.


William Hitchens
Registered user
Mountain View
on Apr 12, 2022 at 6:02 pm
William Hitchens, Mountain View
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 6:02 pm

"Palo Alto's climate change goals may be out of reach." Really? What a surprise --- NOT. I knew the second I first heard of this ignorant debacle that these "goals" were scientific, economic, and financial pipe dreams. This is what happens when you have a govt run by scientifically, economically, and financially ignorant dreamers who are far more interested in being politically trendy and liberally fashionable than in being real-world PRACTICALS. We technically educated practicals are boring and not fashionable, but we know how and when to get things done. And, we have no political aspirations.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 12, 2022 at 6:45 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2022 at 6:45 pm

About that senior city staffer hired to lobby for the affirmation measure that would allow Palo Alto to circumvent the Court ruling that the transfer of funds from CPAU to the General Fund is illegal, can we get more information about that position? Surely the person is doing more than lobbying for a ballot measure. If not and Palo Alto has money to spend on lobbyists, why not hire one to work as a lobbyist for the various S-CAP goals, including NOT approving projects or portions of projects that are an affront to those goals? I am , of course, again thinking of that concrete Castilleja garage.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 13, 2022 at 10:29 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2022 at 10:29 am

@Annette, it would be great if the local media dug in more to the hiring of a new senior CPAU staffer which someone here posted about, having heard from his/her friend working in CPAU.

@William Hitchens, Thank you for that post! Practicality would indeed be special, as well as competence and absence of conflict of interest! I've long been amazed that never once have we seen a CPAU /PA mission statement that includes providing "cost-effective services efficiently." Instead we get unworkable/flawed contests and games comparising our utility usage with our neighbors that ignore factors like the difference in hoe size, number of residents, etc. We had a Transportation Czar who ignored everyone except bicyclists, who ran his own business pushing road signage etc. out of his PA office and who finally left to go on to greater glory pitching 24-hour blinking traffic lights in Los Altos, forcing some poor couple whose sleep he screwed up to sue!

You'll recall it took him 8+ YEARS to fix the traffic light timing on an unnecessary light! So what does PA do? It rewards him with a multi-million dollar contract to fix traffic light timing after he left with pension in hand! Does the light timing work yet? Of course not! You too can sit at an intersection and watch NO cars moving for 2 minutes.

Some practicality and common sense would be special. Let the city focus on making CPAU work -- no more outages for mylar balloons and a REAL workable outage response!


Resident11
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Apr 13, 2022 at 8:41 pm
Resident11, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2022 at 8:41 pm

"Then the City can go fund itself like other cities without a utilities enterprise do."

@Larry, what makes you think that other cities don't get funds from utilities? PG&E paid out almost $140 million in franchise fees this past year. This is the structure that municipal utilities have been copying.


Larry
Registered user
Downtown North
on Apr 14, 2022 at 10:30 am
Larry, Downtown North
Registered user
on Apr 14, 2022 at 10:30 am

@Resident11: I was unaware of franchise fees, so than you for the education. But $140 million seems like a small amount per city, considering how many cities PG&E must serve. Any idea how much franchise fee revenue Palo Alto would receive from PG&E if it did not have its own utility? How would that revenue compare to the CPAU transfer tax?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.