By Grant Cooke
IN JANUARY, THE STATE PASSED THE California Green Building Standards Code, which would require simple energy efficiency upgrades to be included in residential remodels. While a step in the right direction, the state’s standards were neither rigorous nor prescriptive. The code barely scratched the surface of what is possible to achieve in home and facility energy efficiency, not even coming close to what building science knows should be common practice.
Last month Benicia’s Community Sustainability Commission proposed slightly enhancing California’s code. Its proposal was modest, requiring energy efficiency upgrades of 2 percent on residential remodels of 600 square feet or $20,000. This slight enhancement would have been consistent with — but less aggressive than — efforts by other Bay Area communities to push toward achieving Climate Action Plan goals and the reduction of greenhouse gases.
Almost everyone involved with residential remodeling knows that this slight increase in energy efficiency is probably already part of most current remodel planning, which usually includes increased insulation, Energy Star appliances, replacement windows, duct sealing, etc. Further, much of the 2 percent — at $20,000, we’re talking $400 — would be returned to the homeowners via energy-efficiency incentives and reduced energy bills. The CSC’s amendment would have codified common practice and reasonable behavior in a non-intrusive, gentle way, and would have pushed Benicia one small step further toward accepting the reality of our times — that the carbon-intensive, GHG-laden America lifestyle is no longer viable on our environmentally wounded planet.
Yet except for Benicia’s Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, City Council members at the July 19 meeting did not grasp this reality. Watching the two Council members who opposed the amendment fumble for arguments was not pretty, and certainly not an example of effective municipal leadership. It was clear both had made up their minds beforehand and weren’t willing to consider supporting the amendment. Nor were they willing to engage in a responsible way with the CSC, a Council-established group whose members had spent hours in research and discussion on the issue.
Their opposition was not grounded in public outcry. No building contractors or trade representatives were in opposition, nor were homeowners against the proposal. Nor were there disapproving Benicia business owners; in fact, the Council heard a presentation by a representative from the county small business association who argued in favor of the amendment, noting that it would lead to reduced energy costs for homeowners while being economically stimulating to the many small businesses connected to residential construction. Yet since there were only four Council members at the meeting, the two opposing members were able to ditch the issue by forcing the amendment into being reconsidered a year from now.
Benicia’s July 19 meeting hardly came close to what Benicia should expect in terms of leadership from two experienced Council members. At one point in the conversation it became clear that except for the mayor, no Council member could articulate a vision of how Benicia should approach sustainability, or even that moving in that direction was a positive. Nor could the Council, except for the mayor, understand that Benicia stood at a crossroads for the city’s future.
Benicia faces critical choices for its future economic growth. On the one hand, the right choices nurtured by consensus-driven leadership could lead to exceptional community benefits — a thriving and sustainable economic base, an innovative and stimulating business sector, and increased health for residents.
These benefits are within Benicia’s grasp more so than with most American cities because of its unique geographic location, proximity to innovative ideas from Bay Area universities, and emerging awareness by a small and focused group of citizens.
The sharp contrast between economic renovation or economic stagnation is clearly evident in the Bay Area. Cities like Richmond, Vallejo and Hercules (all with carbon-intensive economies) are struggling because their leadership cannot envision new directions and lack the “can-do” ability to implement them. Cities like Livermore and Pleasanton, meanwhile, have both the vision to imagine large-scale new economic drivers and the talent to deliver it.
Now it appears that Dixon, formerly an unappreciated stop along I-80, is stepping into the green industry leadership role that should have been Benicia’s. Dixon has lured Altec Industries there to build the county’s first “green” utility vehicle plant. The Alabama-based company will build a 42,000-square-foot, “green-focused” facility featuring state-of-the-art, sustainable construction. The project will provide dozens of jobs and substantial tax revenues and economic stimulation in Dixon, a town about 60 percent of Benicia’s size.
Benicia needs to quit relying on the old carbon-intensive economic drivers and quickly embrace two critical new ones: knowledge-based businesses and green industries. This is the new wealth of the Bay Area and it is buffering cities like San Jose, San Francisco, Livermore, Walnut Creek, and Berkeley from the ravages of this jobless economy.
Benicia has enormous potential. It has the unique characteristics and geographic location to become a county or regional leader in thought, innovation, and investment capital. With creative thinking and strategic planning, it could attract a whole cluster of brains, talent, and ideas that would enrich the community and provide sustainable development for decades. Failing that, we could at least meet with Dixon city officials and find out how they managed to attract a new robust green business while Benicia can’t even support the simplest residential energy efficiency measures.
There is a silly notion in Benicia politics that sustainability is something dreamed up by “those do-gooders,” or that these ideas are “leftist” or “liberal” just because they seem new and are not driven by the carbon-intensive, extraction-based economic activities that are degrading our environment. In truth, the Japanese have been practicing sustainability since the 1500s, and the Europeans, Chinese, and Koreans since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s.
Sustainability and sustainable development is as much a business as an environmental benefit. There is money to be made in these innovative economic drivers — just ask Silicon Valley, or better yet, Dixon — and those in the “new clean” economy are just as attuned to profit as those in the “old dirty” economy. Maybe more so, because there are so many more startups in the clean economy, and margins are paper-thin in the entrepreneurial world during a recession.
The opportunity for new innovation, reinvigoration and sustainable development is at Benicia’s doorstep. A better, cleaner, more economically robust future is within the city’s grasp. It starts with modest steps guided by city leadership. The mayor can’t do it all — she needs help from the Council. It should rescind July’s vote and adopt CSC’s modest little amendment as a commitment to a new, sustainable future.
Grant Cooke is a long-time Benicia resident and CEO of Sustainable Energy Associates. He is co-author, with Nobel Peace Prize winner Woodrow Clark, of “Global Energy Innovation: Why America Must Lead,” which will be published this fall by Praeger Press.
Sharing is caring!
From the column: “No building contractors or trade representatives were in opposition,”
Ya think?
Why would any contractor be against something that INCREASES the value of his contract and forces, by law, that action?
If you think it is part of the current model, what is your gripe. This is a swipe at the mayors opponent. Like all the other enviro greenies you are a fan of the mayor and love the CSC group. You want the mayor elected again and maybe someone like Dan Smith elected to the council to load the council in her favor. You did not hide that very well. This was a pure political statement with very weak results. This just tells the Concerned Benicians that our mayor is a single agenda driven enviro greenie. If she cared so much about green business in this city she should have been after it big time. She has nothing of the sort in her almost unproductive four years. Another four years of this will not happen. Nice try Grant, sorry you failed. Bob Livesay
Bob,
Enviro greenie? Heh, heh, I like that term. You bet, I’m all for a green revival and a stimulation of the U.S. and Benicia’s economy through green jobs. Who wouldn’t want new jobs in an economy mired in a jobless recession? There’s billions of dollars pouring into the green and clean economy throughout the world. A few examples include Japan’s rebuilding of it’s energy infrastructure with renewables; China’s surging renewable energy industries as typified by Wind City and Solar City; Chile’s pledge for 20% renewable energy generation, Denmark’s pledge for complete energy independence by 2050; England’s huge investment in offshore wind generation, Texas implementation of major wind parks, etc. Much of the rest of the world is taking advantage of the benefits of implementing a green economy. Benicia needs to cut itself lose from the receding carbon-intensive “dirty” economy and move forward into the “clean” economy. It’s not complicated, Bob, just look where the money is going. Silicon Valley and New York venture funds are raising billions of dollars for the green and knowledge-based industries. Goldman Sachs is investing billions in my industry. If Dixon can figure it out, no reason Benicia can’t. The worst part of this is that America can’t shake the angst from 9/11. We’ve become a nation of “can’t do” not the nation of “can do” that we were. We just can’t seem to get back that confidence that we can overcome new challenges. Instead of intelligent dialog that pushes a community towards achievement and improvement, politics is being reduced to silly name calling. Honestly, Bob, being called an enviro greenie is a great compliment, and I’m pleased that you have the capacity to figure me out.
Thanks.
Grant
If this all true, and I am sure it is. Where has Mayor Patterson been? No plan. I have never said I was against the enviroment.? The approach is what bothers me. Is there not a way to make our own oil, natural gas and coal burn clean? We have plenty of all. How about Bakken? We need to put money into these resources and make them work for our enviroment. Our cars and factories all are much better and getting better than they were just 30 years ago. Everyone forgets the progress this country has made. We can make it happen with what we have. Quit being anti oil,gas and coal and present some ideas on how to make this pass all our enviro tests. All this renewable stuff will come in due time for sure. How about Valero and their DOE backed renewable diesel project? I have not heard one word from you greenies and more important the mayor and all her CSC group. All asleep at the switch. . Where have you folks been. All I ever hear is 28′ windmills on your roof top. Solar panels all over the place {Some do past the look test}. If all this money is going elsewhere explain to me why Benicia did not get some. Very simple very poor leader without a plan. All I hear is words from the mayor and no action. Just quit talking and lets see some action. Grant you could get a much better audience if you and your greenies were not “our way only” no one else knows. You are very wrong on that. We all know that I have been a big booster of econ dev . I have always wondered where the mayors plan was? If the greenies would spend more time on a econ dev plan and work with the city on all this you might get a good reception. As it is you do not deserve the time of day. Get your act together. Bob Livesay
Grant may have taken Richmond. But this Grant and Mayor Patterson and CSC enviro greenies will not take Benicia. Mayor Patterson is like Obama a one term show of lack of expierence. Bob Livesay
So Grant, can you (or anyone else here) recommend any good local pv installers?
I’ve gotten a couple quotes (Sungevity and Diablo) and have talked to some other folks but I wasn’t overly pleased with any of their numbers.
Seems like the solar sales space has turned into the wild, wild west with all the .gov cash floating around.
TIA
Benicia needs any jobs it can get
The challenge of creating technologies that would provide for cleaner hydrocarbon-based resource and coal burning energy plants would not take any less investment in comparison to furthering efficiencies in alternative sources of energy. If we were to, in fact, put hydrocarbon-based resource and coal burning energy plants on-line now; I believe that “cleaner'” would be a misnomer.
One must take into consideration the fact that extracting petroleum from tar sands is far more energy demanding than traditional oil sources. Not to mention the additional environmental degradation to areas where tar sands are mined.
Fracking for natural gas has come under fire as of late for its proven contribution to groundwater contamination as well as increasing human health risks in areas where fracking is taking place.
Last but not least, it is well known that mountain top coal mining has caused human health issues , as well as displaced families who live downstream from areas where mountain top coal mining is practiced. Again, not ignoring the overall environmental degradation from these processes.
Input costs, environmental degradation, and social injustice should really be considered. In my humble opinion you really need to measure and compare the externalities (of whatever the energy source might be), before you can label something as “clean”.
Thanks for the info Thomas. I do understand what you are saying. My position is that there may another way to utilize our own resources and make them meet the standards that we are trying to get. Clean may not be the best choice of words. I do believe the automobile is a very good example. We keep uping the standartds and for some reason we seem to be meeting them. I am not against green at all. I just have a problem with it being the only way.
Hence a “reduction of greenhouse gases” as opposed to the “complete elimination”. I don’t see anyone arguing for an “only way”. It just takes a concerted effort. Give a little here take a little there. We can make it work. Less thee not forget, a mutual pioneering spirit is what built this great country.
Thomas you are right. That is all I have ever asked for, work together. I might have a slight disagreement with the “only way” statement. That is how I have seen it presented many times. If there is mutual understanding on what we need i will be there. I would like to see that.
Achieving open-mindedness, and developing the ability to reject tunnel-visionaries and those that cling to the ethos of the days of yore, will be the biggest challenge. All are welcome to join.