Clean Power SF vs Shell Shocked?

According to the SF Chronicle, 4 out of 5 residents haven’t heard of the Clean Power SF program that the Board of Supervisors adopted recently after years of debate.

Will rates go up under the new Clean Power SF program? Image Source: StopTheShellShock.Org

This coming Monday, the SF PUC is set to vote on the ceiling rate for power under the Clean Power SF program. The Clean Power SF program represents the first time that San Francisco residents will have a choice about their power generation source, because PG&E has had a monopoly on power generation and distribution in San Francisco for decades.

CleanPowerSF – Image Source Clean Power SF

Beginning this fall (October, if all goes well), about half of SF’s residential energy customers will find themselves automatically enrolled in the program that provides energy from 100% renewable energy sources. If you find yourself auto-enrolled in the new program, you can opt-out and revert back to the “normal” PG&E rates and energy sources.

The question of what it will cost residents enrolled in Clean Power SF remains to be answered. After the vote by the SF PUC this coming Monday, energy consumers in SF will know the ceiling rate for the Clean Power SF program, and be able to make an informed decision about paying more for clean energy.

Shell Shocked SF is a website against the program that is paid for by IBEW Local 1245. According to their website, “Contracting with Shell would hurt our members, their families and all San Franciscans who would face higher rates and fewer local jobs as a result. IBEW 1245 represents over 19,000 utility workers in Northern and Central California and Northern Nevada.”

Clean Power SF is a website that touts the benefits of the program, and appears to be paid for and/or operated by the SF Public Utility Commission.

Agents across San Francisco have been claiming to do some pretty impressive walkthroughs lately. Agents across San Francisco also can sign up for emails from the sales office that represents the developer. Everyone can come to their own conclusions. But when we do a walkthrough here at JacksonFuller, we take pictures.

Yesterday we had the opportunity to explore the not-yet-open-to-the-general public Exploratorium. Their official grand opening is coming up next month on April 17, but they are in soft-open mode and are letting small groups come through on a time-allocated system. I’m not saying who I bribed, but apparently membership does have its perks!

Overall, the new Exploratorium is awesome! As in, seriously awesome! It has all of the great exhibits from their old building, but also lots more room for new exhibits.

The new Bay Observatory was absolutely incredible, I didn’t want to leave and if it wasn’t for my time-limited ticket and parking meter requirements, I would probably still be there right now.

I also found the exhibit about mental illness and changing attitudes towards treatment to be incredibly interesting. Again, I would have stayed much longer if I could have.

A few other impressions:

• The new building is beautiful. Nice light, good flow, and a beautiful outlook onto the bay. And have I mentioned the new Bay Observatory?
• I didn’t see the menu for the new restaurant, but it looks like nice space. It also looks like it will probably always be crowded, at least for the next couple of years.
• There was a lot more space in the new building, so in addition to a lot more exhibits things are just layed out with more space between the activities, which made for a really nice feeling.
• Pier 15 is located along The Embarcadero at Green street. There isn’t much in the way of street parking, so I’d highly suggest public transit if you can make that work.

I hope you enjoy the photos from the new Exploratorium!

UCSF has been in the news recently for their forest management plan at Mt. Sutro. Last Monday night there was a public meeting about UCSF’s proposal to manage the open space reserve, which in total covers about 61 acres of land.

A photo taken in the Mt. Sutro Open Space Reserve

If you believe UCSF, then you’ll take their Director of Community Relations, Barbara Bagot-Lopez, at her word when she says:

“We are developing a management plan to keep the forest beautiful, accessible to the community, healthy as a forest and safe for our community and for our neighbors’ homes…”

However, if you don’t believe UCSF, then you will probably turn to the draft environmental impact report, which envisions clearing a maximum of 60% of the estimated 45,000 trees in the Mt. Sutro open space reserve. For those of you who aren’t so good at math, 60% of 45,000 is about 27,000 trees!

The point of contention is the Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, a non-native species that is very hardy and wind resistant, and was planted all over San Francisco in previous decades. The current thinking is that substantial thinning of the Eucalyptus trees allows native plants to regain a foothold in the ecosystem, and that thinning the Eucalyptus trees would also significantly reduce the fire danger.

I live near the Mt. Sutro open space reserve and enjoy hiking through it on a regular basis. It truly is a gem of a location, an oasis of trees and nature located in the geographic heart of the city. My experience with UCSF is that regardless of what they say about wanting to be a good neighbor, at the end of the day UCSF is going to do what is best for UCSF, and they will gladly throw local neighbors and residents under the proverbial bus if neighborhood interests don’t align with the desires of UCSF.

That might sound harsh, but to take but one example, when UCSF became a smoke-free campus, it forced all of the smokers off campus and onto neighborhood streets that are now littered with cigarette butts, not to mention the blowing smoke from smokers congregating together. In short, their solution to their problem was to drive the smokers off of their property and make it the neighborhoods problem.

But don’t worry, because being the good neighbor they are, UCSF put up banners along Parnassus that say: Peace, Love, No Smoking. Which did absolutely nothing to alleviate litter or other neighborhood problems.

So when UCSF claims to be interested in forest management for the sake of the community, I’m not buying it. My hunch is that cutting trees is the cheapest way for UCSF to make sure their forest doesn’t burn down their hospitals or other campus buildings. I’m not at all convinced that it is in the best interest of the reserve, although I do certainly support efforts to re-introduce native species.

What are your thoughts?