Scary USA Today editorial

USAToday gave me a Halloween scare with their editorial:  Say yes to building the Keystone oil pipeline. 

Then I noticed that the USA Today editorial was written by James Taylor, who fits the description of what Joe Romm calls "climate zombies".  Taylor edits the Heartland Institute's Environment and Climate News publication.  Nature magazine, one of the stalwart defenders of climate science, says that the Heartland Institute is "happy muddying the waters" when it comes to global warming (see SourceWatch for more details).  And then I remembered that the mainstream media is controlled by Big Oil, so, what could I expect?

Actually, to be fair to USA Today, they did allow Bill McKibbin to write a rebuttal.  (See McKibben's article here.)  But this still reflects an irrational "balance" by USA Today.  Would they give equal weight to articles that uphold the flat earth theory?  How about the talking snake story of creation?  Climate change denial is nonsense and should not be given equal weight to those trying to solve the problem.

Nonetheless, since the article is out there, it's worth considering Taylor's points. 

• Spills:  I'm not in a position to know whether he is right when he says that the environmental dangers of oil spills from the pipeline are "overblown".  The disastrous impacts of mining the tar sands on the environment in Canada, however, are well known.  The point is that we should not be part of promotoing this environmental destruction.
• Energy Security:  His major point is that Canada is one of the United States' "closest and most reliable allies," and that not building the pipeline would "undermine U.S. energy security."  McKibben responds that the pipeline oil is planned for export--i.e. it won't even help the energy security of the U.S.  Taylor denies that point, but he does admit that there is no guarantee that the oil will be used in the U.S.  Taylor goes on to add, in a condescending tone,

  "In a different world, we might be siding with the protesters. In that world, Canada wouldn't mine its tar sands, the U.S. wouldn't import tar sands oil, refineries here wouldn't process it and U.S. consumers wouldn't use it. Instead, everyone would drive electric cars and trucks powered by sun and wind and other renewable energy."

  But that is just the point.  He and his allies are blocking this very solution.  With a proper price on fossil fuels, we could make the shift to renewable energy and solar power in a short time.  There is no need for the pipeline or mining the tar sands, and most importantly, we have to stop global warming.
• They'll Mine the Sands Anyway:  He argues that the Canadians will simply route the tar sands oil to the west coast and sell it to China.  This sounds like telling the highway patrol, "But officer other people were speeding too."  Or telling your parents, "All  the other kids are doing it", even though you know it's wrong.  If we are going to save civilization, we can't mine the tar sands.  It's that simple. 

So, I'm planning to be part of the demonstration November 6 at the White House demanding that President Obama NOT approve the Keystone XL pipeline (See Tar Sands Action to join up).  And in addition, I subscribe to Joe Romm's cure for the climate zombies:

"In summary, a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilization, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to blog hard and blog often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble."

Happy Halloween!

Optimus Prime in Lego

Optimus Prime in Lego
Originally uploaded by bricksonwheels

That there is something special my friends. Something special indeed.

Occupy Together & Tar Sands--more connections

Another important connection between the Occupy movement and the environmental movement is the continuing scandal of tax breaks and subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives.  For example, in California, there is no tax on extraction of oil--we're giving it away!  I signed an initiative petition to create an oil extraction tax; I hope it gets on the ballot and passes.  There are many other subsidies totalling billions of dollars--depletion allowances, foreign tax credits, . . . This is an area ripe for attack.

I also read a very good article on Alternet that makes lots of connections between Occupy Wall Street and the environment.  Please check it out here.

PS--Occupy Oakland is back!--while 2500 people held a vigil at City Hall for injured occupier Scott Olson, and afterwards a general assembly, I counted 18 tents set up by the time I left around 9:00 PM.

Tar Sands and the Occupy Movement--relationship

Whew!  This has been quite a week in Oakland/San Francisco.  Let me tell what's been happening, and then what I think about it all.

Sunday night I stopped by Occupy Oakland in front of Oakland's City Hall to talk to people about having our group--the La Pena Community Chorus from Berkeley's La Pena Cultural Center--sing in support of Occupy Oakland on Tuesday night.  I signed us up at the information tent and spoke with one of the organizers.  He told me that we could always sing on the side of the plaza, but it was hard to say what would be happening in the main amphitheater.  They didn't really schedule things more than a day in advance since there was danger that the police would evict them at any time.

I did stay for the General Assembly and was impressed with the two facilitators and the way the meeting went.  There were a series of committee reports--sanitation, kitchen, finance, security, . . .  One report was from a committee that had met with Oakland public employee unions to discuss maintenance of the plaza and seeking union support.  There was a proposal to limit the General Assemblies to four times a week rather than every night, with open forums taking place on the other days.  I got to see how the process worked as there were questions about the proposal, then speakers pro and con, and finally a vote.  The vote required 90% approval, which it did receive.  It all seemed very orderly and democratic to me.  The feeling reminded me of Berkeley in 1970 when I first moved there--a zillion different points of view, all trying to stop the war and make a new world.

Occupy Oakland at City Hall, October 20

The Oakland Mayor's office said that the occupiers were unable to "maintain safe or sanitary conditions, or control the ongoing vandalism."  From what I saw, the most serious sanitation problem was the complaint that the toilet paper kept disappearing from the porta-potties.  I noticed that the huge old oak tree, which is the symbol of Oakland, was fenced off and was being well respected. 

Since during that visit I couldn't learn anything definitive about our chorus singing, I came back Monday to check out the situation.  This time there was some frustration expressed by a group who had planned to show a film about sexual harassment, because the projector did not show up.  Also I noticed that the sound system was not in place, so I wondered how they would conduct a General Assembly.  In talking to people, I was assured that our chorus, which sings songs of peace and social justice in Spanish and English would be well received.

So I spoke with our choral directors and we were set to sing Tuesday night.  However, I woke up Tuesday to the news that the tent city had been taken over by police.  I went down to City Hall and counted 100 police at the corner of 14th & Broadway.  The Occupy Oakland web site estimates 500 police from numerous jurisdictions were involved in the hostile take over.  See http://www.occupyoakland.org/ for more details.  Here's a photo I took Tuesday morning:

14th & Broadway, Tuesday October 25, 10 AM

But Tuesday was a busy day for those of us who have time to protest.  President Obama was in San Francisco for a fundraiser, and the Stop the Keystone XL pipeline demonstrators were there to demand that he say NO to the pipeline.  I joined about 1,000 protestors, some of whom were the 99%/Occupy movement folks, and some were for legalizing marijuana, but the great majority were there for the pipeline.  See photo below:

My favorite signs from the demonstration were:  "If the environment were a bank, we'd have already saved it."  and "Worse than crude--obscene"

So this was a hectic day, but the movements are just building steam.  Occupy Oakland is planning a major demonstration and a general strike on November 2, and the Tar Sands Action group is planning to surround the White House on November 6.  I'm planning to be at both of these events, so please stay tuned.

Now what is the relation of these two movements?  There are some clear similarities--both are mass movements with many members willing to commit civil disobedience to promote the causes of social justice and human survival.  Both are taking on the most powerful economic and political forces possible--Wall Street and Big Oil.  I think it is safe to say that most people in each movement are sympathetic with the other.  One chant I heard at the Keystone rally was "Yes you can, Mr. President, No pipeline for the one percent"

I also think each movement has at least a chance of succeeding.  The Occupy movement is not limited to any specific demands, but higher taxes for the rich are certainly part of their vision.  Such taxes were a fact of life not too long ago.  I believe the tax rate went as high as 90% back in the 1950s, although I'm not sure anyone actually paid that high a rate.  Similarly, there are many precedents for successful environmental actions--the world agreed to ban chloroflourocarbons when scientists found that they were destroying earth's protective ozone layer; lead was banned in gasoline; power plants have had to reduce sulphur dioxide to stop acid rain; nitrous oxides were reduced from autos by catalytic converters, which has dramatically reduced smog; . . .  In the case of global warming caused by CO2, there are many renewable energy sources, and the world can live without tar sands oil (or any oil for that matter).

However, the political system is stacked against each of these sensible solutions.  Thus, frustration has driven activists into the streets and into civil disobedience to make their point.

How are the two movements different?  The Occupy movement has a much bigger target--all of the rich.  But the fact is that the rich could easily pay more taxes without any great harm to themselves or society.  They are simply not willing, and will not do so unless forced by a mass movement.  In the case of global warming, the movement is only targeting the fossil fuel sector, and in the case of the XL Pipeline, only one part of that--the tar sands industry.  There are large sectors of wealthy corporations that could support the global warming movement--not just renewable energy companies, but also electric car manufacturers, public utilities, silicon valley technology companies, and many more.  In fact everyone is threatened by global warming, so even the fossil fuel industries should surrender in their self interest (don't hold your breath for that to happen).  The difference here is that the rich can afford to pay more to support society, but the oil companies need to be shut down, and they will not go down without a big fight.

So it's quite a moment in history--will corporate America continue its shameless destruction of social programs and living wages?  Will coal and big oil continue to block clean energy programs with disinformation and bought off legislators?

I urge everyone to join these movements and make a better world.  History is made by people who show up!

PS--There's room for fun in all of this.  After the police left Oakland's city hall plaza, some creative demonstrators made a sculpture out of the steel barricades:

More thoughts on the Networked EV conference

Here are a few more notes from Greentech Media's Networked EV conference on October 20:

• While EVs are cheaper than ICEs in the U.S., they are much cheaper in Europe.  For example, in Germany gas costs about $7.50 per gallon while electricity is $0.31 per kwh.  That comes to 30 cents per mile for ICE, assuming 25 miles per gallon, vs. 10 cents per mile for an EV that gets about 3 miles per kwh.  That savings of 20 cents per mile is well above the 14 cents per mile savings that I have been using to show that EVs save money here in the U.S.
• China is already overwhelmingly electric in its transportation.  Most people ride electric scooters that go about 20 miles per hour up to 20 miles on a charge.  Unfortunately the heavy use of coal to generate the electricity negates much of the advantage of the electric vehicles. 
• Should the utilities subsidize solar power and electric car ownership?  I discussed this with one utility representative who felt that it was unfair to do this, and a poor business model.  Personally, I think the environmental benefits (avoiding destruction of civilization by global warming) more than justify subsidizing clean energy and clean transportation.  Right now, as a society, we are subsidizing the oil companies for many billions of dollars.  This should be stopped at once since it is contrary to our national and human self interests.  However, I think subsidies at this stage of solar power and electric vehicles will bring their prices down to the point where subsidies will not be needed in the near future.  And this is in the utilities' self-interest since they are going to be adding millions of new customers for their electricity services.
• I was especially happy to hear Travis Bradford speak since I had read his book, Solar Revolution, when it came out in 2007.  In fact, his book had led me to do further research and, last year, to add solar panels to our house.  I asked him if the predictions he made in his book have been on target, and he said they were.  I did a quick check and noted that his book predicted that solar would cost $4 per kilowatt by 2011, down from $6 in 2005 (page 110)  I read recently that solar prices are now about $5.25 per kilowatt, which is equivalent to $4.57 in 2005 dollars, so his numbers are not too far off.

Bright future for electric vehicles?

How bright is the future for electric vehicles (EVs)?  I just spent the day trying to find out at the Greentech Media  conference--"The Networked EV" in San Francisco.  I joined 100 participants who listened to 18 speakers and panelists.  Keynote speaker Travis Bradford summed it up saying, "EVs may be slow out of the gate. ..but the genie can't go back in the bottle."  David Leeds, from Greentech Media Research said there would be "12 - 15 new models" of EVs coming out in 2012.  Josh Gerber of San Diego Gas & Electric said, "Dealers sell every vehicle they can get, very quickly," as he noted that there are 800 EVs in their service area and that 1/3 of those households have solar panels.  Felix Kramer of CalCars declared, "We have arrived in a major way. . .No one knows the future, but we can do a lot to improve the chances" for EVs.

Overall the feeling was one of cautious optimism.  Most speakers were on the conservative side pointing to the need to overcome range anxiety for pure electric vehicles, the high prices for EVs in general and the Volt in particular, the sparse availability of public charging stations, and a host of misperceptions about reliability and the true savings of EVs due to low operating costs.  Several speakers felt that the enthusiasm of early adopters would flatten out and that additional incentives (e.g. tax credits, permission to use HOV lanes, policy support by government) would be needed. 

Travis Bradford argued that "EVs are already cheaper" showing that an EV could save $837 per year compared to an internal combustion engine (ICE) car.  He also said that the infrastructure is already in place for most U.S. Americans who have garages with outlets.  And he contended that current battery technology is OK and that prices are dropping rapidly.  He said that the ICE "has a competitor," and that "there's nothing better to sharpen your mind than somebody coming to take your business."  Because of that he warned that the new CAFE standards would lead to much more competitive ICE cars, so it will be difficult for EVs to stay ahead in the price competition. 

Travis Bradford

Both Bradford and Kramer felt that extended range EVs (like the Volt) or plug-in hybrid EVs (like the new Prius due out next year) were more likely to meet the needs of the mass market; however, they were both very enthusiastic about the Leaf and other pure electric vehicles as well.  Kramer said his family was the first anywhere to own both a Leaf and a Volt.

Kramer gave the most impassioned plea for EVs. (His segment was originally cast as a debate, but apparently no one wanted to take the opposing side.)  He said, "They [EVs] have to succeed; we're at the end of business as usual" citing climate change and energy shortages.  He said that not "believing in global warming" is like "not believing in gravity."  He explained that EVs are "cleaner, cheaper, domestic" and that these traits bring together a diversity of constituencies ranging from "tree huggers" to "evangelicals".  He also added that he is planning a move to Berkeley so they can be closer to the Bay Area Rapid Transit station, saying,  "The best mile is a nega-mile; EV miles are good but we need to reduce total vehicle miles."

Kramer went on to argue that what is needed is what CalCars refers to as the "Big Fix."  He points out that even if 100% of all new cars are EVs by 2025, it will still take a long time to convert the entire fleet.  Therefore, we need to convert existing cars, especially large gas guzzlers, to hybrids, to extended range EVs, or to pure EVs.  He explained that the technology is in place for all of these and that companies such as ALTe in Michigan and Via Motors in Utah are getting ready to do this in a big way. 

Felix Kramer

The conference did have some differences of opinion.  Saul Zambrano from PG&E said that "Level 1 [110 volt] chargers are OK for daily needs."  However, David Leeds, responded, "Level 1 is like a dial-up connection." and asked how many people still used dial-up.  (no hands went up).  "Level 2 (220 Volts) is needed," he stated.  [Note:  personally, I think the Level 1 would be adequate for our Volt, but I very much enjoy having the faster Level 2 installed.  This would have cost us about $2,300 but we were subsidized, so it only cost us about $500.  If we had had to pay the full price, I'm not sure it would have been worth it for our Volt, which can charge fully in about 9 hours.  However, if we had a Leaf, which might take 12 hours or more to charge, I think the 220 volt charger would be very important to have.]

Another contentious issue was the proposed change and increase in rates for EVs by PG&E.  (see post from last week for more details).  Zambrano said that the E-9 rates "need to be redesigned" and Dan Bowermaster, also from PG&E was more forthcoming when he said, "E-9 doesn't cover the cost to serve."

All in all the conference was very stimulating and informative.  Congratulations to Greentech Media for sponsoring the event, and thanks to PG&E for hosting the conference.  Of course there are many unanswered questions about the future.  Leo McClosky from Airbiquity, Inc, a company the connects EVs wirelessly such as through the Chevy Volt's On Star system, said "We don't know enough about what's going to stop us."  Hopefully what we don't know, won't stop us. 

EVFEST Electric Vehicle Show Sunday Oct.23/2011

EV Fest 2011 Electric Car Show

Toronto's Premier Electric Vehicle Fall Festival Opens the Door Wider to OEM's by Offering Neutral Ground for 2011!

Sunday,
October 23, 2011
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Guests Register: $5
550 Bayview Avenue

See: Electric Vehicles, including Cars, Trucks, Motorbikes, Hybrids, Plug-in Hybrids, eBikes, Electric Scooters, Trikes, and More!

New for EV Fest 2011: Ride & Drive Events;
Longer Show Hours, More OEM EV's on site!

Tell your Friends, Business Associates, Suppliers, Customers, and Neighbors!

Site Location:
Holcim Gallery, Evergreen Brickworks,
550 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

On Site Parking - Shuttle Drop Off

EV Fest continues it's Goal to be the Best Electric Vehicle Show in Canada, and has responded with the selection and choosing of the 2011 site: Evergreen Brickworks,Toronto's Largest Outdoor Farmers Market, and the home of Better Place and a site for AutoShares new Electric Vehicles.

EV Fest invites you to tell all your friends on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and all your favourite Blogs and Forums about EV Fest 2011, Toronto's Premier Electric Vehicle Fall Festival!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Register Now:EV Fest Guests Register Here;
(Also Families and EV Fest Volunteers)

Bringing a Show Vehicle or other Important Electric Vehicle Items?
EV Fest Exhibitors Register Here.

Getting Here: (Bus, Car, Bike, and on Foot Instructions)

By Bus:

-Shuttle: There is a Free Shuttle Bus Departs from the parkette on Erindale Ave east of Broadview Ave (just north of Broadview subway station).

Shuttle bus pickup location on Google Maps The shuttle bus is wheelchair accessible.
Pets are not permitted on the shuttle bus, but service animals such as guide dogs are permitted.

- By TTC: Take the 28A bus from Davisville subway station. Sundays between 8:30am and 6pm. Service every 30 minutes. Departs from Davisville on the :00 and :30 and from Evergreen Brick Works on the :15 and :45.



By Car:

- View the Map At the Right and zoom as needed, or Open this Map Link:

From the Don Valley Parkway: Take the exit for Bloor Street/Bayview Avenue and exit right to head north on Bayview for 300 metres until you come to Evergreen Brick Works.

From Downtown: It is easiest to access Bayview Avenue from River Street, which runs north from King Street and joins Bayview just north of Gerrard Street.

From East York: The easiest way to approach Bayview Avenue from the east is via Pottery Road, which runs between Broadview Avenue (north of Bloor) and Bayview Avenue. Travel 700 metres south on Bayview until you come to Evergreen Brick Works on your right.

Our on-site parking is managed by the Toronto Parking Authority, and paid parking is in effect. Parking is not permitted on Bayview Avenue. Parking on Bayview is very unsafe, and is signed “No Parking.” City staff are obligated to issue parking tickets in this area.

Evergreen Brick Works has pay-per-use parking spots for up to 300+ vehicles but other user activities may reduce the number of parking spots available.

Evergreen promotes a ‘no idling’ policy for all areas onsite.

Parking is Currently -
Maximum $6.00 Per Day. Also $1.00 Per Half Hour.

If you must come by car, please consider reducing the environmental impact by sharing your ride.

For additional tips on sharing see the Evergreen Brickworks Carpool Zone information here.

By Bike - Instructions Here, and by Foot, Instructions here.

If you made it to here - You are ready to join us!

Plug-in Day Report

National Plug-in Day report

Today I had fun at San Francisco’s at National Plug-in day event located at Crissy Field next to the Golden Gate Bridge.  I counted ten Leafs, four Volts, three Teslas and five conversions, so we pretty much covered all the bases of “The Revenge of the Electric Car”.

The event was one of those held in 26 cities and was sponsored by Plug-in America, the Sierra Club, and the Electric Auto Association.

Marc Geller, speaking for Plug-in America, said that next year there will be cars from Ford, BMW, Fisker, and others at Plug-in Day.  He introduced Laura Castellini from the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Kitty Adams of Adopt a Charger.  They had worked together to install a free charging station in the Crissy Fields parking lot, which Laura described as having “the most beautiful view of any charging station in the U.S.”  Laura also described the wind turbines that will soon be installed to provide power to all the park facilities, including the charging station.  Kitty stated that Adopt-a-charger would be installing free charging stations in 100 state parks, 24 state university campuses, and many museums.  She thanked people for their support saying, “The world is run by people who show up,” and she added that she likes to live by the dictum, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

Eddie Scher of the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Oil” campaign spoke about the need to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and said, “The solution is right here,” pointing to all the electric cars.  He said that we should far exceed President Obama’s goal to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, and that he thought it would “be hard to find an internal combustion engine car by 2020.”

Avery Lewis of GetAround, a car sharing program and Forrest North of Plug Share, a program to share 220 charging station locations explained their programs to maximize electric vehicle use.

Here are some photos from the event:

 Marc Geller from Plug-in America

                     Kitty Adams from Adopt a Charger with the new charging station being installed

Eddie Scher from the Sierra Club's Beyond Oil campaign

Avery Lewis and Forrest North of GetAround and PlugShare

Some of the cars on display



PG&E raising rates for electric cars

I've been very happy with the E-9(A) electricity rates that PG&E applies to electric vehicles.  These time-of-day rates cost only 4 cents per kilowatt hour in the midnight to 7 AM off-peak period, and also for most of the weekend.  There are some fixed charges that bring that up to 6 cents per kilowatt hour for us, but that is still an excellent rate and a good way to encourage electric cars.

I've been curious about why PG&E has done so little to publicize these rates, and now I think I know why--PG&E is not happy with the rates and wants to raise them.  Now they are taking advantage of a recommendation from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to eliminate tiers as an opportunity to raise the rates for all but the most high energy consuming EV owners.  The CPUC is concerned that the tiers cause a disincentive to EV ownership, but PG&E's response is an even bigger disincentive.

Here is the letter I just sent to the CPUC on the subject.  Note that protest letters need to be sent by October 17 if you are interested in chiming in:

October 11, 2011

CPUC Energy Division

Tariff Files, Room 4005

DMS Branch

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Re:  Advice No. 3910-E (Subject: Modifications of Electric Rate Schedule E-9 for Residential Time-of-Use Service for Low Emission Vehicle Customers

Director, CPUC Energy Division, et al.

I wish to file a formal protest against the proposed rate changes to electric rate schedule E-9 as suggested by PG&E in Advice No. 3910-E in response to CPUC decision 11-07-029.

I agree strongly with the CPUC’s desire to promote electric vehicles (EVs) and to ensure that the rate structure provides incentives for electric vehicles and for charging in the off-peaks.   It is clear that the intent of CPUC decision 11-07-029 is to seek off-peak charging and to lower costs for EVs in order to encourage their use.  The decision states, “Electric Vehicles are uniquely positioned to contribute toward the policy goals set forth in AB 32 and ARB's 2008 Scoping Plan to encourage the electrification of the transportation sector as a means of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions.”  I also strongly concur with your statement, “Our goal is to create a future where residential Electric Vehicle charging will be the norm.”

I believe that CPUC decision 11-07-029 encourages “non-tiered” rates for EVs in order to promote  EV ownership and to avoid excessive charges.  This is a valid concern, especially in the case of EV owners who drive for more than 1200 miles per month on their batteries* or who have two or more electric vehicles.  However, since the average number of miles driven per month in the U.S. is around 1,000 miles per vehicle, the current Tier structure accommodates the needs of most drivers. 

Also, the elimination of tiers is contrary to the goal of energy conservation.  Even though EVs are much more environmentally friendly than internal combustion engine vehicles, we should still encourage choices that conserve energy.  And even if the EVs are powered by renewable energy, the issues of urban sprawl such as loss of wildlife and farmland, as well as problems of obesity associated with excessive reliance on automobiles, should be discouraged.  The tiered rates promote such conservation and healthy choices.

I believe the emphasis of decision 11-07-029 is on bypassing disincentives for EV use.  Unfortunately, PG&E’s proposal takes advantage of the CPUC recommendation to eliminate tiers, as an opportunity to address primarily the issue of cost.  In the words of Advice No. 3910-E, “Schedule E-9 is both complex and outdated, and its tiered structure does not reflect PG&E’s cost of service.”

Now these may or may not be valid points, but they do not address the essence of the CPUC’s recommendation to encourage EVs.  I do not believe that the CPUC intended to discourage EV use by raising rates.  And it is doubtful that the complexity of tiers is a serious problem since utility bills are currently tiered.  Also, both of these issues are already addressed in CPUC decision 11-07-029 which states, “We find that the Commission should revisit the suitability of the utilities' Electric Vehicle residential rate schedules in 2013-2014.”

PG&E admits that their proposed rates would result in increases for the vast majority of people currently using E-9A and E-9B rates.  Such an action is not at all compatible with encouraging EV use.

The simplest course of action would be to deny PG&E’s request.  You could also consider allowing an option for a single tier for both E-9A and E-9B.  This would benefit those who put a lot of miles on their EV or who have more than one.

You could also apply the single tier, albeit with a lower rate, only to the E-9B schedule.  And you could also reduce electricity prices for only off-peak hours above tier 2 for both E-9(A) and (B), which would “bypass disincentives” to EV use.

It is important to understand that the E-9A rate is especially desirable for those who have solar panels on their roof as well as an EV.  A recent study of Nissan Leaf owners (cited in the Santa Monica Daily Press) found that 30% have solar panels, and this is something the CPUC should strongly encourage.  Rooftop solar panels produce enough electricity to keep total household consumption (both residential and EV) in Tier I and Tier II levels.  This was the calculation we made when we sized our solar photovoltaic (PV) system.  Changing the rates now would more than double our PG&E electric bill.  This is no way to support California in replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and electric vehicles.

Combining PV and EVs is beneficial on many levels.  It reduces greenhouse gases and air pollution; it reduces summer peak hour electricity consumption; and, as you have pointed out in decision 11-07-029 “night-time charging facilitates' integration of wind energy by using the storage capacity of the Electric Vehicles' batteries to transform California's predominantly nocturnal wind power resources into transportation fuel for daytime driving.” 

Therefore, it is especially important to leave the E-9(A) rate unchanged.**  Note that this is consistent with decision 11-07-029, which states, “Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall file an advice letter to modify Electric Rates Tariff Schedule E-9(B) to eliminate the tiers but retain time-variant pricing.” 

However, as explained previously, I believe that the E-9(B) rate proposed in Advice No. 3910-E is excessive and ill-advised.  PG&E admits that their proposal would increase rates for 34 of the 35 people now using E-9(B)—97%!  This contradicts their claim that “PG&E’s proposed changes to Schedule E-9 are designed to be revenue neutral for electric vehicle customers.”

Two additional problems with Advice No. 3910-E are its elimination of weekend off-peak periods and its addition of a winter peak period.  These appear to have no justification other than a rate increase and should be rejected by the Commission.  PG&E presents disingenuous arguments to support these changes:  e.g. “allow customers to more easily remember and understand the daily rate structure”, as if people don’t know when it is a weekend, and “to allow customers greater flexibility for their weekend and holiday charging needs” as if eliminating off-peak periods on the weekend is some kind of improvement.

Thank you for your consideration of these points, and also for your efforts to support electric vehicles and clean energy,

Sincerely,

Jack Lucero Fleck

 *Calculation:   The current baseline for Tier I averages 271 kwh per month.  At 3.3 miles per kwh (our Chevy Volt) this is enough energy to drive 894 miles.  Tier II allows 30% more mileage at a still low rate, i.e. 1,162 miles per month.  So anyone driving less than 1,200 miles per month is almost entirely in Tier I and Tier II. 

**Note that the following statement from decision 11-07-029 is true for many E-9(A) homes without solar power, but it is not true for most E-9(B) drivers, i.e. those driving less than 1,200 miles per month on their batteries:  “the existing single meter Electric Vehicle rates effectively place the customer into the upper tiers of the rate structure due to the increased electric usage resulting from the customer's Electric Vehicle load.”  Therefore, I am arguing that the E-9(A) rates are ideal for homes with EV and PV, and the E-9(B) rates are best for those with EV only.  For both of the E-9 rates, the tiered system works well for most drivers.

Cc:      Facsimile: (415) 703-2200

E-mail: jnj@cpuc.ca.gov and mas@cpuc.ca.gov

Director, Energy Division, Room 4004, at the address shown above.

Brian K. Cherry

Vice President, Regulations and Rates

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, California 94177

Facsimile: (415) 973-6520

E-mail: PGETariffs@pge.com

Posting warnings on gas pumps

Resolution from the John George Democratic Club on the need to provide warnings about gasoline and its relation to climate change

WHEREAS,  Carbon dioxide, (CO₂) is a greenhouse gas and is a major component of the disastrous climate change now taking place around the world, and

WHEREAS, burning gasoline for autos is responsible for about 20% of all CO₂ released into the atmosphere, and

WHEREAS, alternatives to cars such as public transit, bicycles, and electric cars powered by renewable energy, are all available, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the John George Democratic Club urges all cities in California, as well as the State of California, to adopt legislation requiring gas stations to post a warning on their pumps reading,

"WARNING:  Burning gasoline increases the risk of serious climate change.  The City of _______ urges you to economize on the use of gas and seek alternatives such as public transit, bicycles, and electric cars."

And be it further

RESOLVED, that gas stations failing to comply with this requirement be required to pay fines sufficient to cover the cost of inspections and enforcement of the legislation, as well as to promote alternatives to internal combustion engine vehicles.

Notes:  1. Alternate wording of warning:

"WARNING:  Burning gasoline adds greenhouse gases to the air, increasing the risk of serious climate change.  The City of ______ urges you to economize on the use of gasoline and seek alternatives such as public transit, bicycles, and electric cars powered by renewable energy."

2.  Possible design of warning

"WARNING:  Burning Gasoline Increases The Risk Of Serious Climate Change.  The City Of _______ Urges You To Economize On The Use Of Gas And Seek Alternatives Such As Public Transit, Bicycles, And Electric Cars."

 Approved by the John George Democratic Club, October 1, 2011

www.jgdc.org                                                               

National Plug-in Day this Sunday, October 16

Hope to see you at National Plug-In Day is this weekend (Oct. 16). We'll be at Crissy Field in San Francisco from 11:30 - 1:30 with our Volt along with lots of other electric car enthusiasts. There are all kinds activities being put on by electric vehicle enthusiast groups in more than 20 cities all over the nation. Plug In Day events will feature test-drives, product demos, speakers, plug-in parades, electric tailgate parties, and more. Check out http://www.pluginamerica.org/pluginday or http://www.sierraclub.org/ev for more information.

San Francisco's event will be at the Crissy Field Visitor Center, 1199 East Beach San Francisco. The centerpiece of the event will be the announcement of Adopt-a-Charger's first (of many to come) free, public charge station installations at destination locations, including parks and museums.

New Chevy Electric Car

I'm excited to see Chevy moving forward into an electric future with the Chevy Spark: See
The Future Is Electric www.thefutureiselectric.com for the first hint of what's in store.

update:  see MIT Technology Review article

Bye bye oil, and good riddance.

Alternate Fuels Round Up

You asked for it. You even begged and pleaded. You entered my dreams and nightmares and demanded an Alternate Fuels challenge so I gave you what you wanted. And after all that the end result turned out to be one of the slowest challenges in LUGNuts history. This leaves us wondering if you folks really know what you want. But the few of us who submitted something for the challenge showed some moxie so let's review what they have done. This should be a quick and easy write up. lets get to it.

After a botched up job of removing my appendix and giving me lip implants I didn't really want, it turns out DoktorZapp wasn't even a real Doctor. And to think I was so trusting of someone who called himself Doktor. But he did give us our first entry in the challenge so he's good for at least that, anyway. It's Kenny Power's Rocket Fueled Lincoln Continental. Its about as high octane as my new Angelina Jolie lips.

 

 Someone with a real doctorate degree but somehow incapable of making my new lips look less like a puckered fish is Ralph Savelsberg. There is nothing more alternate fuel-ish than his peddle powered bicycle. I'd say it the original alternate fuel and most dependable...unless you're me huffing it up a steep hill. Then I'd just assume ditch the bike and hitchhike with a stranger. Preferably one who claims to have candy.

 

If there is just one thing I know, its that there are no gas stations on the moon. Legogil knows this too...which is why his sleek lunar vehicle has fuel cells...and apparently a snowplow for all your moon roving  snowplowing needs. Neat!
 

 Legogil chimes in again with this rickshaw. I always thought the rickshaw was a strange concept. Imagine, for a moment, riding in one. Here you have a man as a source of fuel...a source equally capable of getting around in both strength and speed as you are, yet here you sit lazily below its canopy while some poor soul schlepps your wide load around. I mean he's not a horse or even a bicycle...its just some guy you pay to take you here and there. Its a class thing, I guess.

 

Dfuzz78 does what he does best...build realistic models of garbage trucks. Seems thats all he does. Well, some people can surf, others are guitar virtuosos...fuzz was born to build awesome garbage trucks. These are what the local refuse trucks looked like before they went with the Power Miner colors of lime green and orange. I'd love for you to build one, Mr. Fuzz. I know you've seen 'em.



Here Jason Son is going green...literally and figuratively with this natural gas powered CNG Mustang. This proves that going green doesn’t mean giving up wheel-spin-inducing, tire-shredding performance. This gives up hope that we can still burn rubber at breakneck speeds while protecting all the pretty trees. Or something.

 

 When peddle power lets you down, 4estFeller has concocted the battery powered sci-fi tricycle. Its sci-fi cuz it has hub-less wheels and the flag staff appears to be a lightsaber...or maybe a neon tube. And I'm pretty sure Darth Vader would ride this...but not the 7ft2 evil black leather clad Darth Vader but rather the five year old one dimensional actor Darth Vader with the wooden way of speaking and the overblown sense of self. What's that kid doing nowadays, anyway?

 

 Someone else with sci-fi on the brain is Lino Martins with my Soylent Green planetary rover/racer thingy. It has crazy four wheel steering and suspension and is named for its fuel source, which I don't know much about but they tell me is cheap, renewable, clean and plentiful. And its also a delicious and nutritious food. It sounds downright Earthy-Crunchy to me and with today's gas prices, I'm all for it! I'm sure there's no need to research the matter further. Nope, no reason for concern at all.

 

Finally Raphy chimes in late in the challenge with his diesel powered custom rat rod style Volvo 240 Wagon. Funny thing, my ignorance showed through by allowing diesel power into the challenge. Its a rare fuel form here in the states but is pretty much the standard in Europe. All a result, this entry is perfectly acceptable but plenty have groaned about it. You're welcome, world.

 

 Anywho, that wraps up our round up for this month. Yeah I know...short and easy. Now I have plenty of time for paying bills, watching Survivor, eating a sandwich and surfing the net...all of which I'm doing while wearing a wrestling mask. I bet you didn't know that. Anyway, LUGNuts is Four Years Old this month and the birthday challenges are always a hoot. You have the opportunity to build any challenge from the previous year and its already turning out to be a pretty stellar month. Stay tuned later to see how it all turns out. Now time to research that whole Soylent Green thing...I don't know what all the hubbub is about... Oh Cripes! Oh God NOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOO......

Consumer Reports revisited

Consumer Reports gave an initial review of the Volt, which I commented on back in March: (http://solarpowerelectriccars.blogspot.com/2011/03/consumer-reports-on-volt.html)

The October issue also has an article about the Volt along with other high mileage cars (Honda Insight, Toyota Prius, Lexus CT, Volkswagon Jetta, Fiat 500). The article gives the Volt credit for its fuel economy, quiet ride, instant acceleration, and good crash test results. It makes some valid criticisms of the driver's visibility, difficulty using the controls, the heater, and the way people can hit their head getting into the back seat. It also criticizes the "brake modulation" and the "narrow driving position"--neither of which have been any problem for me in the 8,000 miles we've driven so far. And the article criticizes the fact that the car only seats four, and that it uses premium gas.

The Consumer Reports article is less negative than the review last March (when gas was a lot cheaper). But what's completely missing from the discussion is that internal combustion engine vehicles (including the high mileage cars listed above) are destroying the planet. There is no scientific debate about this--it is clear that CO2 is causing serious climate change. The Volt is not just a "fuel efficient" car--it doesn't need any gas at all for 80% of most people's daily trips. If the batteries are charged on renewable energy, it does not produce any CO2 for up to 80% of its mileage.

With expected improvements in batteries in coming years, and with an engine designed to run on biofuels, the Volt could provide carbon free transportation.

Compared to the need to warn passengers to watch their head when they get in the back seat, the destruction of civilization would seem to be a more important point to consider when buying a car.

Driving an electric car means never having to say you're sorry.

Chevy vs. Chevron

Last week I was lamenting this Chevron ad in the New Yorker:

But wait--there's a new game in town.  This week, the full page Chevron ad ran again, but this time the Chevy Volt opened the issue with a two page spread:

Yes, there is an alternative to oil, but it's not natural gas as the Chevron ad argues--the alternative is electric cars running on solar (or other renewable) power. 

I would love to see an all out battle between car companies switching over to electricity vs. the dinosaur oil companies going down kicking and screaming.  For the moment, we'll have to settle for this subliminal battle in the ads of the New Yorker.

Still Here

It's been a while, but I am still here. Now for some updates:

My battery pack seems to be giving up the ghost, one battery appears to be failing and I am going to try to bring it back to health in the coming weeks.

I do have a new Civic donor! I picked up a 2001 Honda Civic EX at the end of August and I am getting it ready for a conversion. I'll start a new post on that when the time comes along with pictures.

Right now I am not driving my EV because of my battery issues. I am going to try to revive the low one, but I do plan on doing the new conversion this fall or this winter and getting a new battery pack anyways. Update with pictures are on their way, I just need to find the time to post them!